On Media Blog Archives Select Date… December, 2015 November, 2015 October, 2015 September, 2015 August, 2015 July, 2015 June, 2015 May, 2015 April, 2015 March, 2015 February, 2015 January, 2015

N.Y. Times' new quote approval policy

The New York Times has introduced a new policy opposing "quote approval," the widespread practice of letting sources edit their own quotes prior to publication.

“[S]tarting now, we want to draw a clear line on this. Citing Times policy, reporters should say no if a source demands, as a condition of an interview, that quotes be submitted afterward to the source or a press aide to review, approve or edit," the new policy states.

The move is a landmark decision in a debate that's been playing out throughout the industry, following a report by the Times that revealed how the White House, the Obama and Romney campaigns, and other organizations required quote-approval schemes as a pre-condition for interviews. News organizations including Bloomberg, McClatchy, and The National Journal came out in oppostion to the scheme, but the movement lacked an industry leader whose opposition might bring about substantive change.

(Also on POLITICO: Reporters: We loathe the 2012 campaign)

In a column Monday, the Times new public editor Margaret Sullivan called on her paper to identify a clear policy on the issue soon, something the paper's associate managinge editor for standards, Philip B. Corbett, said it would do soon. Sullivan, who reported on the Times decision today, said the paper had been reviewing its policy for months.

Jill Abramson, the executive editor of the Times, also acknowledged that “we’ll lose interviews” because of the policy. But her decision to lead the charge in this effort was widely immediately praised by other journalists and editors on Twitter.

"Times will make it a lot easier for the rest of us to push back too. Thanks @nytimes!," Ben Smith, the editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed, which has partnered with the Times this year on election coverage, tweeted.

UPDATE (4:40 p.m.): The full memo, via a source at the Times:

Despite our reporters' best efforts, we fear that demands for after-the-fact "quote approval" by sources and their press aides have gone too far. The practice risks giving readers a mistaken impression that we are ceding too much control over a story to our sources. In its most extreme forms, it invites meddling by press aides and others that goes far beyond the traditional negotiations between reporter and source over the terms of an interview. So starting now, we want to draw a clear line on this. Citing Times policy, reporters should say no if a source demands, as a condition of an interview, that quotes be submitted afterward to the source or a press aide to review, approve or edit. We understand that talking to sources on background -- not for attribution -- is often valuable to reporting, and unavoidable. Negotiation over the terms of using quotations, whenever feasible, should be done as part of the same interview -- with an "on the record" coda, or with an agreement at the end of the conversation to put some parts on the record. In some cases, a reporter or editor may decide later, after a background interview has taken place, that we want to push for additional on-the-record quotes. In that situation, where the initiative is ours, this is acceptable. Again, quotes should not be submitted to press aides for approval or edited after the fact. We realize that at times this approach will make our push for on-the-record quotes even more of a challenge. But in the long run, we think resetting the bar, and making clear that we will not agree to put after-the-fact quote-approval in the hands of press aides, will help in that effort. We know our reporters face ever-growing obstacles in Washington, on Wall Street and elsewhere. We want to strengthen their hand in pushing back against the quote-approval process, which all of us dislike. Being able to cite a clear Times policy should aid their efforts and insulate them from some of the pressure they face. Any potential exceptions to this approach should be discussed with a department head or a masthead editor.