New York Times :: 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.
[Jeremy W. Peters:] Both presidential campaigns are keenly aware of what can happen when they speak too freely. Damaging sound bites can live on in the news cycle for days.
Continue to read Jeremy W. Peters, www.nytimes.com
Discussed here as well: The Evolution of Reporters Into Stenographers Is Nearly Complete Kevin Drum, www.motherjones.com
HT: Nieman Lab, here:
How do you feel about reporters letting campaigns edit quotes before publication? nie.mn/OzuvDo
— Nieman Lab (@NiemanLab) July 16, 2012
Further comments:
Stenographic blues... "It's not as if campaign officials ever say anything all that newsworthy in the first place." bit.ly/O4kZKC
— Jay Rosen(@jayrosen_nyu) July 16, 2012
I think authorizing journalist take-back may be satisfying to the journalist, but this. It doesn't change what's already present in a human mind. The judge may have told the jury, "The jury will disregard the previous statement." But can the members of the jury be expected fully to disregard it? Reporter (especially, *trusted* reporter) John or Jane Doe reports, "Candidate Herbert Herbert caught in a lie." Later, it's proved *not* a lie. No matter what attempted editing or retraction is tried, will the reader of the original not have a changed opinion of the candidate or, at least, the reporter?
Posted by: Fjpoblam | July 16, 2012 at 05:29 PM