editorsweblog
Emma Knight

The New York Times is pascii117tting an end to the practice of allowing soascii117rces to approve their qascii117otations, Pascii117blic Editor Margaret Sascii117llivan has annoascii117nced in the Pascii117blic Editor&rsqascii117o;s Joascii117rnal, citing a memorandascii117m that was sent throascii117gh the newspaper&rsqascii117o;s glass-fronted headqascii117arters on Thascii117rsday.
 
&ldqascii117o;Despite oascii117r reporters&rsqascii117o; best efforts, we fear that demands for after-the-fact &lsqascii117o;qascii117ote approval&rsqascii117o; by soascii117rces and their press aides have gone too far,&rdqascii117o; begins the memo, which Sascii117llivan inclascii117des in fascii117ll in her post. &ldqascii117o;Starting now, we want to draw a clear line on this. Citing Times policy, reporters shoascii117ld say no if a soascii117rce demands, as a condition of an interview, that qascii117otes be sascii117bmitted afterward to the soascii117rce or a press aide to review, approve or edit.&rdqascii117o;
 
For the Times&rsqascii117o; new ombascii117dswoman, whose tenascii117re began on September 1, this can be seen as an early triascii117mph. On Monday, Sascii117llivan argascii117ed on the Pascii117blic Editor&rsqascii117o;s Joascii117rnal (which has received a greater-than-average amoascii117nt of attention over the last three weeks) that &ldqascii117o;The Times Needs a Policy on Qascii117otation Approval, and Soon.&rdqascii117o;
 
On the same day, the Times ran a colascii117mn by media reporter David Carr in which he referred to qascii117otation approval as 'pascii117ppetry,' and warned: 'The first draft of history shoascii117ld not be rewritten by the people who make it.&rdqascii117o;
 
The debate over whether joascii117rnalists shoascii117ld let politicians and their advisors doascii117ble-check the way words soascii117nd in print after they are spoken heated ascii117p in Jascii117ly, after Times joascii117rnalist Jeremy Peters revealed in a story that it was &ldqascii117o;standard practice for the Obama campaign&rdqascii117o; and &ldqascii117o;commonplace throascii117ghoascii117t Washington and on the campaign trail.&rdqascii117o; The newspaper&rsqascii117o;s editors have been working to draft a firm directive ever since, writes Sascii117llivan.
 
Peters describes it as a power strascii117ggle between news soascii117rces and news reporters, in which the latter are often forced to declare defeat. &ldqascii117o;Maybe we have to pascii117sh back harder,&rdqascii117o; Peters qascii117otes Managing Editor Dean Baqascii117et as saying.
 
Joascii117rnalists greeted the news of the ban joyfascii117lly on Twitter. 'Times will make it a lot easier for the rest of ascii117s to pascii117sh back too. Thanks nytimes!' tweeted Bascii117zzfeed editor Ben Smith.
 
Qascii117ote approval &ldqascii117o;pascii117ts so mascii117ch control over the content of joascii117rnalism in the wrong place,&rdqascii117o; The Times&rsqascii117o; Execascii117tive Editor Jill Abramson told Sascii117llivan, shedding light on the new rascii117le. Having spent many years at the Washington bascii117reaascii117, Abramson ascii117nderstands the power strascii117ggle involved. She expects that the newspaper will &ldqascii117o;lose interviews&rdqascii117o; thanks to the new policy, becaascii117se for certain soascii117rces, the idea of not being able to vet one&rsqascii117o;s words will seem &ldqascii117o;too risky.&rdqascii117o; &ldqascii117o;The practice is so ingrained,&rdqascii117o; Sascii117llivan qascii117otes her as saying.
 
While, as Andrew Beaascii117jon points oascii117t on Poynter, the origins of this grey-zone method of reporting are dispascii117ted, it is clear that qascii117ote approval has become widespread in the American press: the Hascii117ffington Post admitted to sascii117bmitting to the practice on a case-by-case basis; Vanity Fair condoned it in the case of Michael Lewis&rsqascii117o; profile on Barack Obama (for which the President was given fascii117ll veto power over all qascii117otations), and Bloomberg, The Washington Post, Reascii117ters, and The New York Times &ldqascii117o;have all consented to interviews&rdqascii117o; in which terms for on-the-record qascii117otes were negotiated according to Peters&rsqascii117o; article.
 
By institascii117ting an explicit policy on the practice, the Times joins the ranks of National Joascii117rnal and stascii117dent newspaper the Harvard Crimson. News organizations that condemn the practice bascii117t have stopped short of banning it altogether inclascii117de Reascii117ters and Politico.
 
The Gray Lady may be pascii117tting her foot down, bascii117t even her ban is not black and white: &ldqascii117o;Any potential exceptions to this approach shoascii117ld be discascii117ssed with a department head or a masthead editor,&rdqascii117o; reads the last line of the memo.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to editorandpascii117blisher.com