On July 15, the NY Times ran an article on the growing trend of granting political interviews only if journalists agree to quote approval, i.e. even if a quote is verbatim, those interviewed can then reject them or have them stripped of anything they might consider provocative. Quote approval, the NY Times said, is standard practice for the Obama campaign as well as, to some degree, for Romney's.
Personally, I can see both sides. Journalists are notorious for abusing quotes to give an interview or position a flavor that it really didn't have in context. On the other hand, being told they can't even quote what was actually said can be pretty frustrating for journalists.
What do you all think?
Personally, I can see both sides. Journalists are notorious for abusing quotes to give an interview or position a flavor that it really didn't have in context. On the other hand, being told they can't even quote what was actually said can be pretty frustrating for journalists.
What do you all think?
