Here’s an ugly term: Transactional journalism — also known as a quid pro quo.

Hardly an unfamiliar idea, it came up this week with the disclosure that a writer for The Atlantic made a deal to use a particular word — “muscular” — in describing a 2009 speech by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in order to get an advance copy of the speech. Her aide also required the writer, Marc Ambinder, to favorably mention a State Department delegation attending the speech.

In emails that were made public by Gawker, Mr. Ambinder agreed (“got it,” he wrote of the instructions from Philippe Reines of Mrs. Clinton’s staff) and received his advance copy. The practice rightly was termed “corrupt” by Erik Wemple of The Washington Post, though he gave Mr. Ambinder credit for “appropriate contrition.” (The Atlantic has appended an editor’s note to the article.)

A New York Times reporter, Mark Landler, whose article on the speech also used the word “muscular” and also mentioned the delegation, told me in the strongest terms on Wednesday that he had not made any sort of similar arrangement and would not do so. “That would be a very serious breach of journalistic ethics,” Mr. Landler told me by phone.

Earlier, in an email, he wrote: “No, I would NEVER cut a deal like that. My use of the word muscular may have reflected a lack of originality, but it did not reflect collusion.”

I asked Mr. Landler about it because I had heard from a reader, Ian Frazer, who saw an article in Breitbart, the conservative news and opinion website, that pointed out the use of the word and the description in Mr. Landler’s article. Mr. Frazer wrote that the suggestion that any Times reporting “was guided by its subject in order to gain access is very troubling and should be disclosed if true.”

I agree that it would be very troubling — and possibly grounds for dismissal. Mr. Landler told me that he did not recall receiving an advance text of the speech (a common enough practice) but that he certainly had not cut such a deal, and would not ever do so.

It’s worth noting that the word “muscular” came up often in a search of Mr. Landler’s articles of that period. He told me that more recently, he has made an effort to use the word “muscular” far less often because it tends to equate a hawkish foreign policy with a good foreign policy. “It’s been reasonably criticized as a value-laden term and it’s a good idea to stay away from it,” he said.

Mr. Landler also noted that the State Department wasn’t happy with his article, which “put the speech in the context of her trying to regain her relevancy in the administration, after a period in which she seemed to have been sidelined.” He said he has seen an email from Anne-Marie Slaughter to that effect. And he said that Mrs. Clinton had mentioned the delegation during her speech, which is what drew his attention to it.

I have been critical of Washington reporting that functions as a government mouthpiece, especially through the use of unnamed government sources. And while the practice described in the emails is shocking in how blatant it is — at one point, Mr. Reines instructs Mr. Ambinder to write something, but “in your own clever way” — let’s not be naive: this kind of deal cutting is not entirely surprising.

Having said that, I find Mr. Landler thoroughly credible about all of this. And I was glad to hear his condemnation of this practice.

Speaking of journalistic ethics and practices, it would have been decent of Breitbart’s reporter to reach Mr. Landler for comment before going the route of innuendo.

Correction, February 11, 2016:

An earlier version of this post incorrectly stated that Mr. Landler was the recipient of an email from Anne-Marie Slaughter that referred to his article. In fact, that email was sent to Mrs. Clinton.