Question:
How do you manage the ethical minefields of “access journalism”?
Election 2012 shows political sources working overtime to control their image in every media. What do you do when a source says he or she has to approve all quotes before publication? When is it not worth it to submit questions in writing? Should reporters move away from journalism that depends on access to power? How would that change the news and political dialogue?
This is part of a series of discussions to lay groundwork for a political coverage best practices guide.
Answers: Remember to refresh often to see latest comments!
56 answers so far.
-
Amy Slanchik says:
October 4, 2012 at 12:07 pm
-
allanwiehle says:
October 4, 2012 at 12:02 pm
-
Steven Anthony Hammock says:
October 3, 2012 at 9:10 pm
-
Doug Oplinger says:
September 27, 2012 at 3:24 pm
-
Emily Harris says:
September 27, 2012 at 12:06 pm
-
Gregory Korte says:
September 27, 2012 at 12:13 pm
-
Emily Harris says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:54 am
-
Emily Harris says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:57 am
-
Joe Michaud says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:59 am
-
Gregory Korte says:
September 27, 2012 at 12:02 pm
-
David Craig says:
September 27, 2012 at 12:03 pm
-
Gregory Korte says:
September 27, 2012 at 12:36 pm
-
George Schwarz says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:42 am
-
Emily Harris says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:47 am
-
George Schwarz says:
September 27, 2012 at 1:16 pm
-
Gregory Korte says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:54 am
-
George Schwarz says:
September 27, 2012 at 1:39 pm
-
Emily Harris says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:33 am
-
Joe Michaud says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:17 am
-
Emily Harris says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:18 am
-
Joe Michaud says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:25 am
-
Gregory Korte says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:21 am
-
Jan Leach says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:22 am
-
Emily Harris says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:25 am
-
Jan Leach says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:29 am
-
Joe Michaud says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:29 am
-
Gregory Korte says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:30 am
-
Jan Leach says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:36 am
-
Emily Harris says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:41 am
-
Gregory Korte says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:51 am
-
Emily Harris says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:00 am
-
Gregory Korte says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:03 am
-
Emily Harris says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:05 am
-
David Craig says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:06 am
-
Emily Harris says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:08 am
-
Gregory Korte says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:09 am
-
Gregory Korte says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:12 am
-
Emily Harris says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:16 am
-
Jan Leach says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:17 am
-
Gregory Korte says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:25 am
-
Matthew Korte says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:26 am
-
Emily Harris says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:27 am
-
Gregory Korte says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:29 am
-
Gregory Korte says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:35 am
-
Emily Harris says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:37 am
-
David Craig says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:39 am
-
Gregory Korte says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:39 am
-
Gregory Korte says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:42 am
-
Emily Harris says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:42 am
-
Emily Harris says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:44 am
-
Gregory Korte says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:45 am
-
Jan Leach says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:47 am
-
Gregory Korte says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:49 am
-
Emily Harris says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:14 am
-
Gregory Korte says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:17 am
-
Jan Leach says:
September 27, 2012 at 10:51 am
| ParticipantsFirst and foremost, I do not think you should ever give sources your questions. I do, however, think you should give them your topic. For example, tell them you’re going to be talking to them about the war on women, immigration, or whatever your topic may be. Why would they agree to an interview in the first place if they had no idea what you’re going to talk about? This way, they can prepare and be as much of an “expert” as they want to be during the interview on that specific topic.
I also don’t think sources should have the power to approve all quotes before publication. They should approve their quotes in their own brain before they speak. Yes, people make mistakes. But as a journalist, my goal is not to make people look dumb; my goal is to seek the truth. During an interview, anything a source says should be fair game, and this should be obvious to them before we sit down and talk.
Yes, I think that reporters should move away from journalism that depends on access to power. We are protected by the First Amendment and shouldn’t be under a source’s thumb when it comes to what we can report.
1)I would not move away from access/power. I dont want to hear from tonto. I want to hear it from the Lone Ranger. 2) I would never give approval for letting a subject/source have editing privileges. 3) I do not like the idea of giving questions in advance unless it is a set for a debate and both people have questions beforehand. 4) If it is the only way(?’s in advance) i would comply but I would have followups ready at time of interview. 5) If i though I was being spoon fed or they were trying to dodge or control topic/conversation i think is is the reporter’s/press responsibility to turn up the heat
I do not think it is ever okay to provide the questions in writing to an interviewee in advance. Interviews are supposed to be live, to get one’s REAL response, and allowing the spontaneity to drain out of the interview by means of pre-approved or canned responses isn’t the best way to go about achieving the truth.
I don’t think moving away from journalism that depends on access to power is the way to go either. People in power are the ones who can help move along a story at the greatest speed, assuming they don’t insist on micro-managing every single aspect of the process. If you remove them from the picture entirely, what kind of sources will be left? Advisors, campaign managers, speech writers? These aren’t the people that the public want to hear from. They want the information straight from the horse’s mouth.
Something we did recently was post the entire email discussion between a reporter, Dave Scott, and campaign officials for Senate candidates Sherrod Brown and Josh Mandel. Scott was attempting to interview them about a community civility project in the midst of a particularly nasty campaign. They not only rejected his effort to discuss respectful conversation, but they attacked either us or the opponent. We posted excerpts of this email conversation in the paper and the entire conversation online http://www.ohio.com/news/local/sherrod-brown-and-josh-mandel-campaigns-reject-discussion-of-civility-throwing-mud-works-1.331653
I strongly oppose quote approval, but if a reporter is forced into this situation, then the news organization should publish as much about the negotiations as possible without violating the quote-approval agreement. Put it all online, and tell them in the print edition that they can go online to see how the quote-approval process worked.
Allowing citizens to see how elected officials control the reporting process and news product is very important. I think citizens want to know how this works. It’s their government.
We’ve hit our time limit for this live window – thank you so very much, Gregory Korte, for joining us. Everyone, this conversation now goes in “slow-drip” mode. Think coffee or crop irrigation – in conversation slow-drip means people read the thread anytime after the live discussion window, then illuminate, reflect, push back or add what’s missing. Any one who has subscribed to the thread or participated will be notified of new comments so they can respond. I hope you all can make it back as there are some terrific questions deserving your thoughts! Thanks for being part of the live conversation as well.
Thanks again, Emily, for inviting me. I hope everyone has found the discussion useful. I won’t pretend to have the final word on this. I come as someone who tries to bring an honest, outside-the-beltway ethic to Washington reporting, but I also work in a real world with real deadlines and real story assignments. There’s some tension there. I’d like to keep the discussion going, because I’m still trying to figure out the best way to handle these issues myself. Thanks to all for the constructive conversation.
Gregory, Jan, Joe, George, Matt, David, and anyone else watching — I’m going to repost this since we’re coming to a close on this hour. Let’s get at some ideas of best practices.
For example, when might it be smartest to allow quote approval? Or say no way? Certain situations more important than others?
What about other requests, like questions ahead of time, agreeing to change for accuracy but not tone.
Any guidelines for what to specifically say to sources? And to your audience? Could we redefine our purpose as reporters in a way that would change our approach to politicians?
This just came in from our Facebook page:
Valerie wrote: “If you’re a journalist, there’s no place for quote approval in your world. You’re not doing PR; you’re reporting news.”
Thoughts?
I appreciate Gregory helping us see this topic in its full shadings and ambiguities. As much as we’d like black-and-white answers, ultimately journalists need to be transparent and guided by an inner ethical compass.
All good questions. This discussion has been mostly about quote approval, and that’s understandable. It’s a hot topic. But it’s also important to recognize that it’s just one part of a wider discussion we ought to be having about all these issues. How much control is too much control to give a source? I won’t send my questions ahead of time, but it’s certainly fair and courteous to let the subject of an interview have a general idea of what I want to talk about. If there’s a logistical reason for doing an interview over e-mail, that’s OK, too. But I think we agree to some of these requests too soon, for not much benefit.
One of my deciding factors is this: Can I do the story without this access? If I can — even if it means I have to have a no-comment from someone involved in the story — I don’t need the access. I can set the terms, and the terms are that the source can speak on the record or not at all. But some stories, like my article this morning on the campaigns’ early vote strategies, can only be done if people on the inside will agree to talk. I hope those stories are rare.
I think allowing quote approval, if ever, needs to be tied to questions such as the public importance of the information and whether there is any other way to get the story–similar to previous guidelines on issues such as anonymous sources, going off the record and use of deception in reporting. For example, from Poynter and Kelly McBride: http://www.poynter.org/uncategorized/25191/questions-to-ask-before-going-off-the-record/
Here’s a point I should have made at the beginning: Quote-approval is not an ideal practice. But in my mind, it’s a much better alternative to off-the-record reporting, which is (in my humble opinion) a cancerous epidemic in political reporting.
Which does the greater harm to the public trust: Allowing people in power to push an agenda from behind a veil of anonymity? Or pushing those same people to go on the record, while also working with them to make sure their statements are recorded accurately and fairly and — in extreme cases — allow them to take selected statements off-the-record? I don’t like either, but if you force me to choose I’d rather do what I can to put a name behind a quote.
I run what is basically a one-person news website operation that has morphed from original format of a weekly paper. As the owner-publisher-editor-reporter, I will not follow any of the practices that give sources control of my content. In other words, when we published a weekly newspaper, I recorded (either in person or on the phone) interviews with sources. If I needed a quote, I would listen to the recording and make sure the quote was accurate. I did not give sources prior review of the story or their quotes.
On occasions when they asked to review the story before publication, I flatly told them it was impossible and counter to journalistic ethics. If they said that I couldn’t publish what they had written, I explained to them that they’d already spoken to me and could not unring the bell. Sometimes, it resulted in some disagreeable moments.
I remember distinctly when one of Texas Rep. Joe Barton’s press people called me when I worked for the Amarillo Globe-News and insisted that I could not quote Barton directly (this was sometime between 2003 and 2005) that crude oil prices would go to $80 a barrel. I didn’t check with any editors and simply told them that I don’t do those
George, what do you think the benefits and drawbacks of your approach were?
I suppose the biggest benefit to me is I get to keep my integrity and publish a story using my news judgment and not submitting to the agenda someone else has. What would be the point of doing the story if you end up being a shill? My view, and it is an opinion, is I’d rather do a story with integrity than be a shill.
Do I occasionally lose a story? Sure. I guess that’s a price I have to pay. But I’d rather the public know nothing than pander and have them be victims of propaganda.
George, I don’t think I’d necessarily do anything different in your shoes, especially as it relates to Burton. But l’s also ask this: Does the media savvy of the source hold any weight in this consideration? What if the source isn’t a congressman talking about crude prices, but a grieving mother who tells you something she immediately wants to take back? Do you give her a benefit of the doubt you don’t give a public official?
Gregory, that’s a good question. I would have to resolve it on a case by case basis. If the grieving mother says something that might lead elsewhere that would advance the story or provide a better background, I would explain what I was doing and negotiate. However, the example of a grieving mother is extreme. The rules for a congressman would apply equally well, as far as I am concerned, to local political officials, business executives, government officials and others who carry community responsibility of some sort. The key point is that as a reporter, with the support of an editor (I hope), the news outlet shapes the narrative. I find it interesting that as we’re having this conversation online, Jim Romenesko is reporting on a memo from McClatchy Washington Bureau head James Asher. (http://jimromenesko.com/2012/09/27/mcclatchy-editor-sometimes-we-journalists-filter-events-too-much/ ) I see Asher’s approach to this as a typical corporate managers attempt to play all sides of the issue at once. Pity the poor staffers who try to interpret double, triple and multiple messages from a boss. Talk about nuance. I try to stand for integrity.
Let’s get at some ideas of best practices. For example, when might it be smartest to allow quote approval? Or say no way?
What about other requests, like questions ahead of time, agreeing to change for accuracy but not tone.. Others people have dealt with?
This isn’t about quote-clearing per se but about access overall: It seems that reporters based in D.C. working for regional newspapers are in a very tough situation. They have little to write about if their state’s senators and reps don’t cooperate. Thus their ability to cover issues of any controversy is severely limited. How did you manage that dynamic as a regional reporter in D.C?
From your experience, Joe, do regional papers have any leverage? Are those the news outlets politicians care about the most?
By “regional papers” I’m talking about papers below the size of metros like Chicago, Boston etc. When I was in newsrooms, we saw the elected officials basically feeding press releases to ourD.C. bureau, and if there was something big or controversial, they’d find a way to manage it with all the local media. So the presence of a reporter in D.C. rarely made a significant difference in terms of accountability.
I have a unique resume as a Washington reporter for a national paper — I never worked as a Washington regional reporter (save for an internship at the Cleveland Plain Dealer 20 years ago), and I never worked for a Hill publication. But to answer your question, I think it’s especially important for regional reporters to recognize that your congressman needs you more than you need him or her. And remember, there are sources in Washington — even those who know your community — other than your own congressman. I would try to understand the region’s priorities as well as the congressman, and use those to set the coverage agenda — not just what the congressman says.
Emily & Joe, In my former life as a regional newspaper editor I would argue that the hometown audience is the MOST important for senators and reps. If they are media savvy they know the local media influence the voters, and not just with endorsements. Of course, the voters may not “count” when it comes to funding campaigns.
Jan, do you think though, that talking to the hometown audience through the media is still most important? I wonder how much of the “defensive mechanism” Gregory describes comes from the hope that maybe now through Twitter and other means of direct access they can control the message.
Emily, to answer your question: I think talking to the hometown crowd through the media is just one way to reach voters and the public. Greg and Joe can probably give us great examples but politicians, celebrities and other newsmakers should have an integrated media relations strategy (I think) that includes social media, press releases, good sources in newsrooms and an understanding of what makes news, when and why.
Agreed that senators and reps value the hometown audience. I’m talking about the two-edged sword of having a reporter actually based in D.C., versus using reporters in the hometown working by phone with reps and sources in D.C. It seems the cost-benefit of the embedded reporter may not make sense, but I’m just throwing out that question.
I think Jan is right. I discovered early on in D.C. that working for a national paper gave me a certain amount of clout. My phone calls tend to get returned. But I also know that if a congressman from Wisconsin has a choice between me and the Journal-Sentinel, I lose.
To tie access to quote approval, may I ask whether anyone has seen sources quoted in one outlet who refused to be quoted or give quote approval to you; i.e. a source quoted in USAT that wouldn’t be quoted in the Plain Dealer or Beacon Journal? How would/should we respond to that?
How far does that clout go in setting the conditions for an interview rather than negotiating them?
I will say that there are times when I see an anonymous quote in some other news outlet, and I know exactly who it is. And here’s the thing about Washington journalism: EVERYONE IN TOWN KNOWS EXACTLY WHO IT IS. That’s what’s so frustrating and bizarre about some of these conventions.
Hi Jan! And everyone! We’re going to talk about “access journalism” today, and all the negotiating with sources that requires. This is part of a series of conversations exploring ethical issues in political coverage, a partnership project to lay the groundwork for a new best practices guide. Gregory Korte is our guest for the next hour. He covers Washington for USA Today. Everyone is welcome to jump in anytime.
Gregory, welcome!
Thanks, Emily, for inviting me. I’ve been working through these issues of what I call “access journalism” — on-the-record, background, quote approval, etc. — ever since I moved from community journalism to the Beltway two years ago. I’m still navigating those treacherous waters, and even had a story today that had to rely in part on quote approval. It’s a timely and important topic for journalists, especially in an election year.
You told such a funny story about quote approval last week at the Poynter Kent State media ethics conference…that the only time you’d been asked to change a quote was when the mayor of Akron wanted to take back a “goddamn.” Then you said Washington DC was a culture shock – as you mention above, the treacherous waters of people automatically defaulting to background even for very basic information exchanges. requiring quotes emailed back for approval. What is behind this culture, do you think?
Gregory, I’m interested to know how your own ethical standards and any policies at USA TODAY figure into your decisions about when or whether to rely on quote approval.
That’s a great point, David…I’d love to hear from people about how often they respond to these kinds of requests based on their own standards, be it case-by-case or blanket, and how often there is a clear newsroom policy.
The hope of the ethics guide we’re working toward with these conversations is to offer some standard guidelines.
I think it’s a defense mechanism that many institutions — especially in the government and political realms, but also others — have developed in part to inoculate themselves against an increasingly chaotic media environment. They’re trying to control the message. Sometimes that means they want a degree of editorial control over how they’re quoted. And sometimes it means they want to say something, but don’t want to put their name behind it. It’s a way of deflecting accountability.
USA TODAY does not have a newsroom-wide strategy. It’s been a fast-moving debate — as you may know, the New York Times (which has been leading the discussion on this, to its credit) just promulgated a policy last week. It’s certainly something editors are aware of and want to be careful with. But at the end of the day, I have to uphold my own standards. One of the things that’s so insidious about quote approval is that it’s not necessarily transparent to the reader or even the editor. That’s beginning to change, and I think that’s good.
Why do you have to rely on your own standards? Shouldn’t a newsroom back you up? Or can that hurt?
And when do you think you should make it transparent? Does that run a risk of limiting access?
Sorry, a quintuple barreled question! Yikes!
Greg, should the media try to pierce those “defense mechanisms” you describe? Or is it too difficult to cultivate sources without offering or agreeing to quote approval? Your thought about what’s transparent to readers when this is going on is pretty basic in terms of the ethics of accuracy and independence.
Oh, I think my editors certainly have my back. Any time I’ve run into a confrontation with the White House, or some other institution, they’ve backed me up 100 percent. But I know the story better than my editors do. I know how I reported it, what sources I had available, and what negotiations I had to make in order to get someone on the phone. (Most of the time, by the way, those negotiations are routine and necessary, like how much time a congressman can give me, for example.) I don’t have the time to run all those 1,000 little editorial decisions I make every day past my editor, but I do bring him on board with the big ones.
What is the danger in quote approval? Sources often complain that they’ve been misquoted or taken out of context. Given the difficulty in transcribing an extended oral interview, might the criticism be valid? Shouldn’t they have a chance to verify the accuracy of the quote?
Do you think The New York Times’ new policy on quote approval will change anything?
Jan, I think it’s incumbent upon us to push back every chance we get. It should be a reflex. Whatever conditions a source asks for, we should ask for even more openness and accountability. And there has to be a breaking point. There have been many times I’ve had to say, “no dice” to a source. I think — or at least I hope — that if you do it in an honest and forthright manner, sources will understand and it won’t hurt you in the long run. But I also think there are sources who try to figure out the path of least resistance into the news cycle. They look for reports unlikely to dig deeper, to push back.
I make a distinction between quote approval and quote review. I think it’s completely fair and proper to read back quotes to a source — or even e-mail them, depending on logistics — to make sure they’re accurate. I’ve always done that and will continue to. Quote approval, on the other hand, gives sources the power to decide what’s on and off the record retroactively. If they said it, but don’t like that they said it, they can take it off the record. That’s a slippery slope, and one that makes me uncomfortable. (Full disclosure: The question comes from Matthew, my brother.)
But Gregory, didn’t you say at Kent State that you’ve allowed it sometimes, and yet no one has ever changed a thing? So is this an unrealized danger – or is it something that really could use some ethical guidelines across the whole industry.
Also, what about taping interviews? Does that change anything?
It was interesting that the Times memo said having a policy should help reporters push back against quote approval. If other news organizations adopt similar policies, maybe it will help their reporters, as well. What do others think?
As for the New York Times policy, I think it’s helpful. But I also think it depends on how it’s enforced. Here’s what I mean: The Times has a strict policy that any information from an anonymous source must disclose the source’s reason for wishing to remain anonymous. If you look at a lot of those reasons, they don’t hold water. I also think that defining “quote approval” is tricky. If a source imposes on my sense of fairness to make the case that quoting him a certain way would be misleading, have I just granted him quote approval? I think there has to be a certain amount of give-and-take in any reporter-source relationship, and I’m not sure how you legislate that in all cases as a matter of newsroom policy.
When I gave my talk about this at Kent State, I said that I had granted quote approval in some rare cases and no source had ever objected. That was true at the time. I had a story in the paper this morning in which one of the campaigns would not agree to be quoted on the record. I slept on it, and then decided to disclose that in a tweet: https://twitter.com/gregorykorte/status/251366731291959296
Sounds like a lot of room for best practices guidelines though!
What was your thought process? And why Twitter, instead of attached somehow (on the USA Today online version?) tied to the story?
Did your editor know about the tweet?
I think David makes a great point about the New York Times policy. Every time I push back hard — not just about quote approval, but also backgrounders, e-mailed statements, etc. — I’m told, “Well, I deal with reporters all the time, and no one else has a problem with it.” It might be like plugging the levee after the waters have broken, but every sandbag helps.
David, I agree with Greg that a policy is just a starting point. It’s like trying to have an ethics policy that can’t address every possible situation. Such policies are helpful but just a starting point. The most useful thing, in my experience, would be ongoing discussion of the underlying issue such as quote approval, anonymity, etc.
Why use Twitter for transparency? It’s not the ideal tool, but it’s the one that was most convenient. I saw one story this morning about the NFL official lockout in which the writer interviewed veteran referee Ed Hochuli. The story quoted him at length before saying that Hochuli eventually decided to go on the record with his comments. Not sure if that would have worked in this context. Do we need to develop a journalistic shorthand for this? I think everyone knows what anonymity means. What do readers know or expect about quote approval?
Gregory, I’d like to ask you to talk about the benefits of “access journalism.” We need to hear from the people in power, right? So what’s out of whack? Maybe you could even take a stab at defining it…
Oh, I do think that it’s important to acknowledge that there are times when you need to negotiate with a source to make both sides comfortable enough to allow a free flow of information. And some of the greatest investigative reporting of the last half-century has been possible only because of anonymous sources. What’s troubling to me is the casual use of background sources and quote approval for information and perspective that’s completely dispensable. It’s a balancing act, and I think there are times we’ve fallen off the beam.
Looking forward to hearing Greg Korte’s ideas on quote approval in a few minutes.