Read David Carr's take on the desire of some affluent sources to require reporters and journalists to pre-approve their quotes – before they'll grant access.
Carr's piece, "The Puppetry of Quotation Approval," is here. Let's discuss what you think. Your brief and well-expressed posts are due here by 2:30 p.m. Thursday, 28 Feb.
In my opinion I think i could go both ways on the subject of quote checking. Sometimes it is a good thing to get the quotes checked because you want to make sure your getting the right point of what the person you are interviewing was trying to say. However, I feel like if you have to check every quote it may get boring. What I mean by this is if someone you are interviewing says something funny and it really adds to ur story ur going to want to use it but if they dont like it then it can be completely taken from ur story. I think journalists should be free to ask a question and expect a response back they can run just like stated in the story.
ReplyDeleteI think that this was a very interesting and well written story. The idea of sources checking their quotations can be a good thing in some perspectives and a bad thing in others. If you are the person being interviewed and you work for a major corporation, or even if you are a PR person, you can understand how important it is to make sure that your interview being published does not reveal any negative press. At the same time though, David Carr has a huge point in this article. The fact that public officials, business executives and individuals high up in media companies have the right to check what their being quoted on can completely change and even ruin the story at hand. By giving them the right to see exactly what is being quoted, they can completely change the story around and make the reporter look bad or even take what was once a great story and turn it into a dud. To an extent I think that these people should have rights to view what they are being quoted on before it is published, but I think that journalists should be free to publish what was quoted in the interview if it is the truth and the individual really did say it.
ReplyDeleteDavid Carr makes a very valid point about quotation approval. The idea that someone from a major corporation or an influential figurehead can completely cut out the actual meaning of the story by approving what is quoted is not the point of journalism. Quotation approval, although obviously perfect for PR companies, is rather manipulative. Journalism was not meant to shape someone's persona or be used to hide certain truths. It is to reveal truths, state facts, and bring it to the masses. If a source does not want something published that paints them in an ill light then the best option would be to simply not say anything in an interview that they shouldn't. A reporter's job is to get the facts and distribute the facts, but with quotation approval these facts are chosen or manipulated by whoever the source or business is. Although I can understand reporters themselves may manipulate their source's quotes, and that the sources wish to protect their honest reputations from these acts utilizing quotation approval. No matter what though the last line of the article is the whole point in why I believe the quotation approval process is a horrible idea.
ReplyDeleteI think the debate over quote checking and negotiating is one that will never be fully concluded. Checking quotes with sources can be beneficial or harmful to the core meaning of a story. Allowing sources to approve quotes before publishing is a great way to double check the accuracy of what you've written but also opens a door for a source to want to change or retract something he or she previously said. However, verifying details with your source and allowing them to review your article are two different things. When it comes to your duty as a journalist, your first priority is to the public, not to your sources. I think the only reasonable explanation for reviewing your quotes with a source is to verify your facts and make sure that what you've written is what he or she really said. It does not matter whether or not the person "likes" what they said it matters that you recorded and wrote it down verbatim. It is up to you as a journalist to write the quotes in your story as you see fit. In David Carr's article, he wrote that journalism is a form of transaction; including sources in the reporting process takes away that element and downplays the truth and feelings of a story.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that there is going to constantly be a battle about quote checking. However, I find it to be necessary at times and depending on the point of view. If you're in PR then it is absolutely necessary. Quote checking will give the sources the opportunity to change or re-think what they've said. From a journalists point of view, it could change the entire story. If you give the source the opportunity to go back and change what they've said, there goes the entire quote and story. I think the only reason we should have quote checking is to confirm that the quote is exactly what the source said, but that's why we have recorders. Quote checking shouldn't be used as a "way out" for sources. What quotes journalists want to use should remain in their power. If sources do not like it then oh well. As long as the writer or author does not change or twist the words of the source, then quote checking would be considered unnecessary.
ReplyDelete"The first draft of history should not be rewritten by the people who make it." I love this quote. Quote approval, in my opinion, should not be allowed. I agree that it is important not to misconstrue the meaning of what a source says, but I think that if quote approval becomes the norm for journalism, we will move to a society where everything is pre-scripted and no none will know what the truth really is. Out job as journalists is to remain objective and record the truth. If we allow our sources to go over what they say with a fine-toothed comb, they will make sure that nothing is offensive, or may change the meaning entirely in order to save face. When being interviewed, a source should be completely aware that anything they say can and will be taken note of by the journalist. A source should watch what they say, anyway, if they want to make sure nothing is misconstrued or makes them look badly. But going back after saying something is a form of untruthfulness, and I definitely think quote approval should be limited to the most special of cases.
ReplyDeleteI completely understand the desire of people wanting to approve their quotes. However, you are responsible for your words. If you do not want something printed, then you should not say it in an interview for an article that will probably be published. This presents the problem of the honesty in the interview though. Granted, readers will probably not ever know whether the source is being truthful or not. If you have your own opinion, you should be able to voice it and not be ashamed of it. If your words are insulting to someone else, you should not be saying it at all, in an interview or not. People should take responsibility for their words.
ReplyDeleteThis story is very well written. There will always be a constant battle between quote checking. When you are interviewing the source, usually their answers are well thought out, but when a queston is asked about something that was not rehearsed, that is when the truth seems to come out. As a journalist, your job is to give accurate information, not to change the point of view of the story, whether it is to make the source look a certain way in the public eye. Quote checking should only be used to make sure that the meaning behind the quote stands just as they said it. If you allow the source to check their quotes before publishing, it gives the source the ability to take the quote out of context and change the entire meaning to fit a certain standard. It would affect the authenticity of the story being written. In this case of quote checking, it should not be used.
ReplyDeleteThis is yet another example of how far people will go in order to look appealing or acceptable in the public eye. Do I think quote approval is ethically "okay"? No, absolutely not. As a journalist, you have a job of reporting accurate news from reliable and credible sources. What is the point of interviewing someone or going to a press conference if you're ultimately going to be forced into physically changing something someone said? In that case, why don't people just email their "quotes" to publishing companies so that this whole process can be avoided? In my opinion, quote checking changes the validity of journalism. However, I do think quote checking should be used in a way of simply going back over what was said and double-checking that someone's message is being received correctly.
ReplyDeleteWhile in some cases it may be the wise to have quote approval in order to assure accuracy and avoid miscommunication or misinterpretation, it should not be a regular thing. It is not a journalist's job to show people in a good or bad light. A journalist is impartial and their duty is to inform the public, not promote interviewees. Like David Carr, I think that quote approval takes away from realness and truth of journalism. If someone requires quote approval as a precondition to interviewing, then they should simply decline to interview all together because then its not real anymore.
ReplyDeleteBoth sides to the debate over quote checking have concrete and easily arguable points. On one hand, the reporter may not want to quote check because of the extra time it takes, the risk of having it be changed to their disadvantage, or having it not be approved. On the other hand, however, the person who is quoted may want to make sure everything they said will not cause future harm to them personally or professionally. I believe that there are certain cases where reporters should do a quote check. If the interviewee is providing an extreme opinion or stance on a topic they should have the right to verify what the reporter is going to quote them on. Everyone speaks sometimes without thinking. This could cause trouble if a reporter chooses to quote them on something they did not necessarily mean. A reporter should not, however, be forced to quote check if the person providing information is informing them of facts they can easily get somewhere else. Although quote checking may take extra time it will cause less drama or uneasy feelings in the future.
ReplyDeleteQuotation approval is yet another example of the fact that today's world is all about telling the story you want to be true rather than telling the story that is true. Maybe those two stories are the same, but if this were the case, quotation approval wouldn't be an issue. Quotation approval most likely started as a common courtesy in good faith. Carr mentions that most journalists don't nail the quotation down word for word every time because of the lack of recording. But he emphasizes the point of getting to the point of the quotation. So, it is likely that quotation approval began as a practice to remedy this error. But if you give someone an inch, he/she will begin to take another inch and as many more inches as he/she can possibly get from you. It's human nature. Quotation approval has now reached the point that entire stories must be scrapped because someone doesn't like what he/she actually said being being revealed. God forbid anyone be accountable for what he/she said on the record.
ReplyDeleteI think the conflict over conflict approval is one that will never come to an end when it comes to journalism stories and interviews. On one hand you have the idea the comment approval can lead to the manipulation of words by the person that said the quote. It gives the person being interviewed to exclude the things they want to be excluded and only say what they want to say, which can leave out important details of a story. On the other hand it is a courteous gesture by journalists that can keep someone for being misquoted and can get rid of miscommunications. Too often in the media we see that people say that their quote was "taken the wrong way". Comment approval is one way to avoid that conflict all together. However I do think it is manipulative in some cases when a person that is being interviewed asks for certain information to be left out. If they are being interviewed they should know to choose their words carefully, especially if you are aware that anything you say is fair game to the public.
ReplyDeleteI feel that quote checking has it's ups and downs, but honestly it seems like more of a negative aspect in my opinion. I feel that having to get quotes approved could honestly destroy the credibility of the story and it's authenticity. For example, if you interview someone and they sound like they don't know what they're talking about, perhaps it should be known that, in fact, they DON'T know what they're talking about. This happened with me last semester, when I wrote a story for The Oxford Eagle about Brad Morris (Democrat) running against Rep. Alan Nunnelee for district one. Morris was unsure in his answers, whereas Nunn's campaign manager was spot on in everything. It took some severe editing to try and keep the article neutral for journalistic integrity. Seek Truth, and Report It. Not Seek Truth, and ask permission.
ReplyDeleteYes, I do agree and understand what the articles is saying. I think it is important to go back and check quotes. Some people forget what they say and may have said something that could get them in trouble and did not think about the first time they said. Sometimes people say off the wall things not knowing that you were even paying attention or were going to write that very quote. Some journalists may hear the person that they interviewing say, don't record or quote me on this and quote it anyways because they want a juicy story. Some journalists may even make up quotations just to turn in a story by its deadline. It is hard to believe that one word can cause someone millions of dollars, but if that is the case what harm would it be to go and approve quotes that you want to use for a story.
ReplyDelete