I know that’s what I said, but that’s not what I want you to print that I said
July 17, 2012 in ethics, General Media, Politics
South facade of the White House, Washington DC, as seen from the Washington Monument. The White House is the official residence and principal workplace of the President of the United States. Located at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW in Washington, D.C., it was built between 1792 and 1800 of white-painted Aquia sandstone in the late Georgian style and has been the executive residence of every U.S. President since John Adams. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Yesterday, the New York Times pulled back the curtain on one of the uglier aspects of campaign journalism: source approval of quotes. It’s not really a surprise that campaigns try to do this. They are trying to win, and manipulating the truth is part of that process. It’s also not a surprise that journalists get caught up in the game as well. They are “on the bus” to get access to information, and the campaign holds the keys to that access.
The push and pull over what is on the record is one of journalism’s perennial battles. But those negotiations typically took place case by case, free from the red pens of press minders. Now, with a millisecond Twitter news cycle and an unforgiving, gaffe-obsessed media culture, politicians and their advisers are routinely demanding that reporters allow them final editing power over any published quotations.
Quote approval is standard practice for the Obama campaign, used by many top strategists and almost all midlevel aides in Chicago and at the White House — almost anyone other than spokesmen who are paid to be quoted. (And sometimes it applies even to them.) It is also commonplace throughout Washington and on the campaign trail.
The Romney campaign insists that journalists interviewing any of Mitt Romney’s five sons agree to use only quotations that are approved by the press office. And Romney advisers almost always require that reporters ask them for the green light on anything from a conversation that they would like to include in an article.
Still, it’s a shoddy practice, and it would be nice if journalists, editors and producers would put a stop to it by refusing to participate. That will happen as soon as the Washington DC press corps stops using “an anonymous high-level administration official who was not authorized to speak” as legitimate sources in news stories.
John Robinson sums up what most of the editors and advisers I’ve ever worked with and for would have said:
They could say what every editor I’ve known would have said: “Hell, no, we won’t give you prior approval over your quotes. We’re going to tape it. If you say it, it’s on the record. Be responsible for your words, don’t say something stupid and you’ve got no problem.” The source could say no interview and that’d be that. But if your competitor gives in, well, you lose the story.
To bring this back to college journalism, this type of practice has crept into administration and athletic departments over time. The constant reliance on e-mail interview questions is a symptom of a need to control information and avoid saying something that looks stupid. College journalists should avoid the pressure to get preapproval for quotes or stories, with a caveat that I’ve mentioned before:
Every interview should be recorded on a digital audio recorder.
And, as a reporter, when you type out that quote from your notes, you should check it against that audio recording. I’ve heard far too many sources mention how they’ve been misquoted to know that too many of us, even if we record an interview, don’t check the audio against our notes afterward.
This isn’t really directly related to the Times story, other than the need to get the quote and get it accurately. But this sorry confession is a good enough reason to bring it up again.
(Thanks to Erica Perel for bringing the John Robinson post to my attention via the CMA listserv)



Logan Aimone, director of ACP/NSPA, led a live chat for the Poynter Institute about teaching moderating online comments, a topic that comes up about every six months or so. There was some great discussion in the chat, which is archived here: 

![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f658ad05-3db6-4ac0-9021-1348213b1923)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=74d3bfcb-4778-432d-83e2-689fa31e1f3b)
One way not to do online comments (rant)
July 16, 2010 in Community, ethics, industry news, management, social media
Over the life of this blog, and in my studies of the online news business since 2001, I have seen so many efforts to rein in online comments that my eyes roll when I see a new round of pearl-clutching from news editors and publishers about how nasty commenters are on their web sites.
But of all the efforts, this effort by the Sun Chronicle in Massachusetts has got to be the prize-winner for ways to kill off a commenting community. The SC not only wants readers to register to comment using their real names and addresses, they want users to give up credit card information and pay a one-time fee of 99 cents for the privilege!
Look, I can understand the desire to have a well-functioning, civil community of readers commenting on your web site. I can even understand the desire to have people use their real names when commenting (although I disagree). But demanding that readers give up sensitive financial information and then billing them just to leave a comment on a web site is … well, I can’t use the words I’m considering right now on a family web site.
Of course, if the Sun Chronicle were serious about wanting comments, they could use Facebook Connect. It’s not 100 percent foolproof, but it would tie a comment to a user’s online identity in a more meaningful way and discourage or eliminate “anonymous” comments (pro-tip: when a user puts a name – even a made-up name – in a comment box, it’s not technically “anonymous,” but “pseudonymous”).
More likely, this change will drop the Sun Chronicle’s commenting community to near zero. And if I were an enterprising web denizen in one of the paper’s communities, I’d be busy putting up a web site that allows users to comment on SC-related articles without registering. Just provide headline links to SC stories in blog posts and allow comments on those posts. No need to steal content.
I’ve often gotten the vibe that a vast number of news media professionals hate comments, and would rather not deal with them at all. After all, people on the Internet can be real jackasses when their name is not associated with what they write.
But shutting off comments on your site – or trying to get people to pay to do so – is no real solution. It just drives people to other places on the Internet where they can comment without fearing for their jobs, or their social status, or whatever.
Last year, Va. Tech’s Collegiate Times student newspaper went through a similar type of situation. A campus committee was dismayed that there were racist comments showing up in the comments on the Collegiate Times’ web site. So the committee’s solution was to try to get the news org. to stop allowing anonymous comments by cutting off university funding.
Brilliant!
No mention of, you know, actually dealing with the disgusting underbelly of racism that brings these comments out. Just sweep the problem under the rug so the campus community looks pristine.
The truth of the matter is that managing an online community of commenters is work. It’s like tending a garden. If you don’t put in the work to root out the weeds (abusive commenters), you won’t get the vegetables (cogent commenters) to flourish.
The Sun Chronicle‘s recently announced policy roots out the weeds by digging up the entire garden.
Related articles by Zemanta
Tags: anonymity, comments, Community, Facebook Connect, Website
Comments Off