Controlling the Quotation Marks
The balance of power is shifting between journalists and their sources
By Al Diamon
It’s called quote approval. It’s a term even many reporters and editors aren’t familiar with. And it’s changing the nature of news.
Quote approval is a deal whereby a source agrees to be interviewed only if he or she is allowed to choose which quotations from that interview will be used in the story. According to a July report in the New York Times, it’s common practice in Washington and on the campaign trail. “From Capitol Hill to the Treasury Department,” the article says, “interviews granted only with quote approval have become the default position.”
The Times allows the practice, as does the Washington Post, Bloomberg and Reuters. Politico discourages its use, but hasn’t completely banned it. The National Journal and the Washington Examiner refuse to do interviews based on that arrangement. Dan Rather called it a “media sellout.”
Thoroughly unethical? Well, not exactly. The odd thing about allowing pre-approved quotes is that its origin can be traced to efforts by reporters to become more above board. According to a CNN.com article by Ari Fleischer, former press secretary for President George W. Bush, the idea was born from good intentions and a practice lots of journalists (including me) have employed.
After conducting an off-the-record interview, a reporter, seeking to avoid using an unnamed source, often asks if one or two quotes could be attributed to the interviewee. Following some negotiation — sometimes involving slight changes to the wording — a deal is struck, and everybody is happy.
But this seemingly harmless, even beneficial, practice inspired an unforeseen alteration in relations between reporters and important sources. Instead of waiting until after the interview to discuss what would be on the record, the sources started demanding in advance the right to approve quotes, as a condition of talking at all. As Fleischer put it, “It turn[ed] the relationship between a source and a reporter entirely over to the source.”
In Maine, demands for quote approval appear to be rare, if they exist at all. Calls to several journalists and a few public relations people turned up nobody who’d admit to engaging in it. But as the practice becomes more widespread, it will eventually show up here. And when it does, expect politicians to be the first to use it.
If that’s the case, Kevin Miller, MaineToday Media’s Washington bureau chief, could be among the most vulnerable. Miller needs to maintain good relations with the four members of the state’s congressional delegation, without whose cooperation he’d be hard pressed to do his job. He said he’s never had anyone demand quote approval, and neither he nor his editors would grant such a request.
“I like to make sure that the person I’m interviewing understands that when we start a conversation, we’re on the record,” he said.
Of course, elected officials don’t always need a guarantee they can pre-approve quotes. Nearly as effective at controlling the coverage is telling reporters they’re unavailable for interviews, but will issue statements. That removes any possibility of verbal slips or uncomfortable follow-up questions. Members of Maine’s delegation have long employed that dodge.
At the State House in Augusta, Capitol News Service’s Mal Leary also has to be careful to keep lines of communication open with all the key players, particularly in the governor’s office and legislative leadership. Nevertheless, Leary said he’s never been asked to let the interview subject pick the quotes, and he wouldn’t agree if he were.
“I just don’t do it,” he said. “That doesn’t strike me as journalism.”
Leary did say he’s observed members of the press corps negotiating with spokespeople for access to officials. Another reporter told me it’s not uncommon for some journalists, particularly those who work in television, to agree not to ask questions on certain topics in return for getting an interview.
Adrienne Bennett, Gov. Paul LePage’s communications director, said she’s never asked for quote approval, but she has asked reporters to revise comments they’ve paraphrased to more accurately reflect the administration’s position.
“It’s not necessarily a do-over,” Bennett said. “Sometimes, there needs to be a clarification. … It’s all about getting accurate information out there in a manner people can understand.”
Portland public-relations guru Dennis Bailey said he doesn’t ask for quote approval for his clients, because, “it makes it sound like they’re hiding something.” But Bailey isn’t shy about calling reporters to ask if he can change something uttered in an interview. He said that for the reporter, the decision to do that should be based on whether “it’s about being more accurate or about saving face.”
Quote approval has its defenders. Chris Stenrun, former spokesman for the federal Department of Health and Human Services, wrote a letter to the New York Times claiming the practice “has helped bring some honesty and truth to the intersection of journalism and politics.” Stenrun said that’s because it allows sources to speak freely while off the record. The alternative, he said, would be more guarded comments or scripted statements.
John Christie of the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting takes a contrary view. Christie said that rather than making sources more candid, “it allows them to water down quotes. It hurts the veracity of the coverage.”
While freelance investigative reporter Lance Tapley has never been asked for quote approval, he’s among the minority of Maine journalists who don’t absolutely condemn the practice. While admitting that granting interview subjects that power is “clearly a slippery slope,” Tapley said all interviews are essentially negotiations between reporter and source, and a variety of tactics must be employed to get the facts.
“I would generally say no [to quote approval],” Tapley said, “but there’s no absolute here. It depends on the importance of the information.”
Tapley said he doubts quote approval will ever become as ubiquitous in this state as it is in Washington, because it’s rare for a local individual to be critical enough to a story to wield that kind of power. “If they don’t want to talk to me on the record,” he said, “I frequently won’t talk to them. But if I’m after information that’s crucial, you have to use all the tools of the trade.”
There’s one more concern about quote approval. Most journalists who engage in the practice don’t disclose it in their stories, so the public has no way of knowing the article they’re reading has been manipulated by one or more of the subjects who were interviewed. Even when employed for the best of reasons, quote approval has become a method of, in effect, deceiving the reader.
If this sort of deal is going to continue to be made — and there’s no sign it’s going away any time soon — editors should require full disclosure of the details of the deal in each story that contains pre-approved quotes, including which sources were allowed to use it and which quotes were selected by those sources.
If that makes some folks more reluctant to talk on the record, it’s a small price to pay for restoring a bit of honesty to journalism.
Al Diamon can be e-mailed at aldiamon@herniahill.net.
