Dan Rather: Quote approval is 'a jaw-dropping turn in journalism'

[Newsjock]

Source: CNN
By Dan Rather, Special to CNN

A New York Times front-page article Monday detailed a new phenomenon in news coverage of the presidential campaign: candidates insisting on "quote approval," telling reporters what they can and cannot use in some stories. And, stunningly, reporters agreeing to it.

This, folks, is news. Any way you look at it, this is a jaw-dropping turn in journalism, and it raises a lot of questions. Among them: Can you trust the reporters and news organizations who do this? Is it ever justified on the candidate's side or on the reporter's side? Where is this leading us?

... Let us mark well this Faustian bargain. It is for the benefit of the politicians, at the expense of readers, listeners and viewers. It is not in the public interest; it is designed to further the candidates' interests.

... Please know that there is no joy in calling attention to these things. I respect and empathize with reporters and editors who must compete in today's environment. And I know full well that when I've been covering campaigns, which I still do, I've made my mistakes and have been far from perfect.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/19/opinion/rather-quote-approval-reporting/index.html

[no_hypocrisy]

1. To the best of my knowledge, either something is "on the record" or it isn't.

You can't splice on and off the record at will.

Example: you're a candidate and have a drink at a bar and a journalist identifies him/herself to you and wants to talk with you. You can protect yourself from anything being legally published by saying from the get-go, "This is strictly off the record, OK?" and the journalist has to accept those terms. Nothing you say will be repeated.

But OTOH, you can give license for being "on the record" and then tell the journalist(s) what not to quote. Public is public.

It's a poor commentary on today's journalists to take marching orders on what (or what not) to report.

[Sam1]

11. I can understand this as a "gentleman's agreement" but as a matter of law

wouldn't such a law be a violation of the 1st Amendment protections of speech and press?

The enforcement of the gentleman's agreement would be the source cutting off any further access for the offending reporter.

I would certainly appreciate a US Code citation if somebody has one.

[tomp]

49. if there is a cutting off of access....

.....it would seem the journalist could sue for damages based on violation of the first amendment.

[Springslips]

25. As a former reporter I can tell you. . .

That there is no such law. You can quote anything said by a subject if you so desire without any legal consequences. OTR is something that reporters take seriously as a matter of trust and reputation.

There is no industry standard about what OTR, background, and deep background means. Each reporter, newsroom, editor and source may have different ideas of the meaning of each terms. So I was always careful to explain what I take each term to mean before allowing the interviews to go forward. I would try to get a gist of why the source wanted to go OTC, background ( I attributed as "school official&quot or DB ( I attributed as just "source&quot . I didn't want to know something big if I couldn't publish it. Often I would say no to an OTR request. Many times they would just tell me anyways.

What these guys are doing sickness me; I left journalism because of shit like this.

[no_hypocrisy]

35. Welcome to DU Springslips.

Wish you had stayed in journalism, BTW.

[truedelphi]

42. This field of modern day journalism is simply

not journalism.

And you have to wonder at how the culture of the news room gets changed. Why does every news room go along with these things? Almost immediately.

As far as I can tell, the beginning of the end of our civilization was when they started in with the 48 hour news cycle. The notion that now the most important thing about a story is that it be NEW.

So important things, like understanding the derivative gambling, and betting, using "exotic" financial instruments and therefore the total trashing and unraveling of the overall Universal Economy, that important story is not even developed on TV or radio. You have to be on the internet to educate yourself. Otherwise the story escapes you.

But that is exactly what the Powers that Be want: for if everyone realized that the Two Party "Democracy" in America is a totally bogus, One Big Money Party Oligarchy, the one percent would see a lot more people at the Occupy fests.

And the Powers that Be would be in a lot more trouble than they are right now, when no matter which of the major party candidates wins in November, Wall Street does win also.

[Sam1]

52. Thanks

I thought it had to be something like this so thanks for the conformation.

[ificandream]

55. You are correct, though ...

... it appears politicians want to write the story themselves. Which is b.s.

[Enrique]

2. I predict Amy Goodman will have something to say about this

I heard about this development and thought of her.

[SoCalDem]

3. Sadly, 99.9999% don't know who Amy Goodman is

[calimary]

23. Unfortunately, you're correct.

We really don't have ANYBODY nearly as prominent as limbaugh or the lovely weasels and know-nothings and blonde inflatable sex toys at Pox Noise. It's a shame. Amy Goodman deserves WAY better.

[april]

41. you are so right

[russspeakeasy]

4. When is the last time you read an article and thought

"yeah, I can trust this journalist" ?

[emilyg]

8. Probably 30 years ago.

[aggiesal]

9. I trust Greg Palast ...

Too bad he doesn't work for any US based media outlet.

[TahitiNut]

12. Any time I read Bill Moyers ... or The Nation.

[nashville_brook]

13. Matt Taibbi

[nashville_brook]

14. Ari Berman

[nashville_brook]

15. Michael Hastings

[nashville_brook]

18. Jane Mayer

[Posteritatis]

27. The last couple days. Love my local newspaper. (nt)

[Marr]

30. I trust several. Matt Taibbi, for instance.

His work is always well researched and thorough.

[ellenfl]

32. when it was dan rather or bill moyers, to name 2. eom

[russspeakeasy]

34. I have to say; I am really impressed with the number of people

who read a journalist they trust.

[Rhiannon12866]

37. Rachel Maddow, Richard Engel, Dan Rather.

[HiPointDem]

5. kr & fuck them all.

[Uncle Joe]

6. I suspect this is an ultimate victim from the elimination of "The Fairness Doctrine."

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC decided to eliminate the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fairness_Doctrine

Thanks for the thread, Newsjock.

[KamaAina]

7. News is what people do not want you to know.

Everything else is public relations.

[tomp]

50. nicely put. nt

[Baitball Blogger]

10. I hope they handle quote approval on the Newroom.

[Luminous Animal]

16. Greenwald comments:

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/17/inept_stenographers/

I genuinely do not understand how any self-respecting journalist could even consider agreeing to this. But they do, so much so that it is now widespread custom. I don’t primarily blame the Obama campaign or other politicians for this: it’s natural that they would want to manipulate the American media as much as possible for their own interests and use every instrument, no matter how journalistically unethical, to achieve that. But its extreme use now is reflective of the general fixation which the Obama administration has on secrecy and controlling the flow of information, as the NYT notes:

Reporters who have covered the Obama presidency say the quote-approval process fits a pattern by this White House of finding new ways to limit its exposure in the news media. . . . Under President Obama, the insistence on blanket anonymity has grown to new levels.

[99th_Monkey]

36. Mr. Transparency on the campaign trail, and now this. snort! ~nt

[Fumesucker]

17. Tim Russert revealed in his Scooter Libby trial testimony that "off the record" was default..

At least it was default when dealing with powerful people.

I'm not sure I see much difference between default off the record and quote approval...

[AnotherMcIntosh]

19. MSM-financed stenographers

[lunasun]

56. good definition of most now days!!

[Blue_Tires]

20. As a former reporter, this phenomenon is really ugly

The only times I've ever heard whispers of this practiced was with the celebrity rags interviewing some Hollywood A-listers or pop musicians who were bad conversationalists, too dumb or drugged out and all their comments had to be filtered and re-filtered through a PR agent...

[calimary]

29. Yeah, no kidding. I'm a retired reporter and the deterioration of the industry of which I was

Last edited Fri Jul 20, 2012, 02:23 PM - Edit history (1)

once so proud just hurts. And I find myself taking it personally. It's a disgrace. The people who are on camera, especially, and on radio and in print these days are for the most part a national disgrace. AND they're complete idiots. They majored in TelePrompTer in college. I remember a forum in which a then-young Jane Pauley defended her being chosen for the co-hosting job on the "Today" show after Barbara Walters went to ABC by saying she WAS, TOO, qualified! She insisted with mild indignance, "I had FOUR YEARS EXPERIENCE IN FRONT OF A TELEPROMPTER!" They'd called her the "Indianapolis Ingenue" when she was tapped for that job. Local pretty young blonde makes good on the national stage. And that was just the beginning.



I remember working in a TV newsroom as a writer/segment producer, and hearing the cute little girl co-anchor, reading aloud from the script as she walked around the newsroom shortly before air, with a quizzical look on her face, noting the slug line at the top of the page: "Scotus. What is that? 'Zat someone's name? Who is Scotus?" Several of us chimed out in unison "Supreme Court Of The United States." But God, she photographed like a million bucks.

That's one of the one-liners my husband and I love to throw around when we're watching TV or cable news: "...but he/she PHOTOGRAPHS well."

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Back country story

We used a 4x4, and wore clothes for the terrain.

Local blond shows up in heels. We had some fun at her expense with camera guy in the bush.

I had visions of implrovised splint (a couple cardboard boxes in the truck) and screaming blond for helo...serious.

[spanone]

21. there is no journalism in 'news' reporting. it's gone. dead.

the media sold out years ago.

[Brickbat]

22. "Quote approval" is not a "new phenomenon." It's been going on for years.

[davidthegnome]

24. As a (potentially) future journalist...

I will not work for any news organization that obeys this new sort of "rule". If I end up working more or less independently, unless someone says from the beginning of the conversation that it is "OFF THE RECORD" then I'm certainly not going to agree to withhold certain comments. Hell with this quote approval business, our media is leashed enough as it is - certainly when it comes to matters of any real importance.

Freedom of speech does not apply only when it is convenient for the powerful. It either applies all the time or not at all - as does free press. There are laws and rights in this Country that really need to start being more vigorously defended by those who claim to serve us.

[pinto]

26. Interesting, experienced take. Echoed on televised "interviews".

Partisan talking points go by with out any journalistic follow-up or requests for facts, citations, sources, etc. "Some say" gets a big pass in today's journalism.

[liberal N proud]

28. That is how propaganda works...

The controlling group or individual approves all that is said and printed.

Fascism lives.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

31. "News is what they don't want you to print,

propaganda is what they do."

This is the first thing you are taught at the University of Missouri School of Journalism, obviously a long time ago when print was still king.

My instructors would have puked at this arrangement. Then they would've failed you.

[truedelphi]

43. And one reason that teachers at most

schools of journalism no longer care is that many journalism students no longer even interview at magazines, newspapers or radio.

With the cost of a decent university education at a major journalism school, most graduates gravitate over to being a Corporate Spokesperson. The fact that they will be lying through their teeth for the rest of their life doesn't seem to bother them.

[JDPriestly]

33. i'm so happy to see Dan Rather returning to center stage. Great reporter. Great human being.

We are living in a political culture of fear. That is the result of the national security state, over-militarism and too much petty surveillance.

Ironically, a guy like Zimmerman . . . . well, I'll leave that up to you.

So often, the real danger to us and our kids is not where the national security state is looking.

[DeSwiss]

38. Considering the ownership milieu of the media today......

...I'd say this was to be expected Dan. Which is why they got rid of all the people like you.

- You know, REAL journalists........

K&R

''The two greatest visions of a future dystopia were George Orwell’s “1984” and Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World.” The debate, between those who watched our descent towards corporate totalitarianism, was who was right. Would we be, as Orwell wrote, dominated by a repressive surveillance and security state that used crude and violent forms of control? Or would we be, as Huxley envisioned, entranced by entertainment and spectacle, captivated by technology and seduced by profligate consumption to embrace our own oppression? It turns out Orwell and Huxley were both right. Huxley saw the first stage of our enslavement. Orwell saw the second.'' ~Chris Hedges

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Not gonna do it, period

What's next, aprove all copy?

[Major Hogwash]

44. "I don't remember what I said, but I stand by whatever I said." ~ Mitt Romney

It's the Faux Snooze "dumbing down" syndrome.
That's what I think it is.

[arely staircase]

45. we live in retroactive times nt

[SemperEadem]

46. Access. That is the reason why reporters do it

they might not agree with this, but their bosses---managing editors, publishers, executive producers, news directors and general managers-- make maintaining that a part of their job descriptions. They want access--because to not have access means they don't have the story and if they don't have the quotes or the SOT's and the other outlets do, then they think they look stupid and uncompetitive.

Access buttresses image. Image buttresses "prestige".

All it takes is one call to the bosses for a reporter to cave and go along, if that reporter intends upon remaining employed and paying their bills. They know that there are younger, sillier newbs just waiting to go along and do what they're told for a lot less money to do it.

The day money stops driving ad revenue is the day when the fifth estate stops worrying about access.

[mountain grammy]

47. Grew up with Walter Cronkite

Exposed to real journalism for a time, but that all changed. The end of the fairness doctrine was just one thing that changed the media. Now we've come to this. Depressing.

[progressoid]

48. "Faustian"

Dan shouldn't use words like that. Too confusing to the typical American. If he keeps doing that, he'll get fired...

[Dustlawyer]

51. All reporters on the campaign bus/plane should stick together and say NO! The candidates need

coverage.

[leveymg]

53. Before every netw'k News show: "This broadcast has been approved by federal agencies and candidates"

That, at least, would provide some context.

[ificandream]

54. Insanity ...

This is kind of an extension of the way celebrities have tried to manage news the past few years, but it's ridiculous that politicians are stooping to this. I sincerely hope reporters are telling these guys where to go.

[Hubert Flottz]

57. K&R

I just about quit watching or believing the "NEWS" when CBS fired Dan Rather at Bush's request.

[Lars39]

58. We used to make fun of the Soviet Union for doing stuff like this.