A piece by New York Times media columnist David Carr has started a lively discussion on the practice of allowing quotes to be approved before they’re published. It’s been happening for years in various forms, but Carr believes it has gone too far:
It used to be that American businesses either told reporters to go away or told them what they wanted to know. Now, a reporter trying to interview a business source is confronted by a phalanx of factotums, preconditions and sometimes a requirement that quotations be approved. What pops out of that process isn’t exactly news and isn’t exactly a news release, but contains elements of both.
In 20-plus years as a spokesman and a PR advisor, I’ve seen plenty of misquotes. Some were honest errors, others willful distortions.
So it’s important to remember that quote checks came about because reporters hold all the cards – whom to quote, what to quote, what context to provide. Sources control just one thing: what they say. Negotiating to get the best terms is to be expected.
And if you don’t like the terms, don’t do the deal. Reporters who agree to allow sources to approve quotes have only themselves to blame if their articles are bland and lifeless. Sources who insist on quote-checks and other strings should know they are likely to be left out of the story, too. Set the ground-rules, and live with their consequences.
The blogosphere has changed the equation, of course, tilting the field in favor of those whose quotes are in demand. There is more competition for quotes from presidential candidates and high profile CEOs. They can set aggressive terms, and they do.
But if you’re not a sought-after name, your best chance of being quoted is to say something interesting in an on-the-record interview. When you get your shot, take it.
Reporters can also decide whether to grant a source the ability to retract a quote or to only modify it without gutting the meaning. Altering quotes can be a slippery slope of course, and it is easy to take the sting out of a tasty barb with just a keystroke. But it can be the difference between keeping a source’s remark in the piece or having it evaporate.
I recommend checking quotes when the subject matter is complicated. A badly transcribed or misunderstood comment about a trading strategy or a scientific process can lead to tears once it’s in print. The reporter looks uninformed, and the source is angry. In these situations, reporters are as grateful as their sources for the opportunity to check quotes.
I’m also a strong proponent of having official spokespersons – the professionals who represent their companies in the media – put their names on their words. See a recent post on this subject, related to Facebook, here.