http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/3/14/13398/1467
White House press staff rewrites attributed quote after the fact (Media) By maynard Sat Mar 15th, 2003 at 09:01:16 AM EST Jonathan Weisman, economics reporter for the Washington Post, admitted in an informal posting on Poynter that the White House demanded he rewrite a quote taken 'off the record' from an unnamed administration official before they would provide approval for final publication. In his post he clearly admits that he "[...]violated journalistic ethics, by placing into quotation marks a phrase that was never uttered by the source[...]", and then published the story as news. At the time Weisman was writing a story about the now sacked chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, R. Glenn Hubbard, and his economic theories, many of which underpin the administration's $374 billion proposal to end the 'double taxation' of dividends. Part of a $674 billion tax plan offered by the Bush administration, the dividend tax cut would ostensibly help 'jump start' the economy by reducing taxes on investment income. The White House press office agreed to provide an off the record interview on the condition that any quotes published would be e-mailed to the press office for vetting and final approval, which Weisman states has become "[...]fairly standard practice." The original quote Weisman obtained reads as, "This is probably the most academic proposal ever to come out of an administration.", which the press office agreed was fine with a 'small change'. The official, not the source of the original quote, instead suggested the quoted text state, "This is probably the purest, most far reaching economic proposal ever to come out of an administration," but Weisman objected since it removed the word "academic," which was the primary point of the original statement. The official amended the quote again to, "This is probably the purest, most academic, most far reaching economic proposal ever to come out of an administration," and was finally printed with the "[...]most far reaching[...]" omitted as such: "This is probably the purest, most academic ... economic proposal ever to come out of an administration." After publication the White House denounced Weisman for breaking his Journalistic integrity by printing a partial quote that the White House had already request he change after the fact. As made clear in his post, Weisman agrees with their claim that he violated journalistic ethics - but not for the reasons outlined by the administration's press office. In the post he states: I had, of course, violated journalistic ethics, by placing into quotation marks a phrase that was never uttered by the source, ellipses or no ellipses. I had also played ball with the White House using rules that neither I nor any other reporter should be assenting to. I think it is time for all of us to reconsider the way we cover the White House. If administration officials want to speak off the record, they are off the record. If they are on background as an administration official, I suppose that's the best we can expect. But the notion that reporters are routinely submitting quotations for approval, and allowing those quotes to be manipulated to get that approval, strikes me as a step beyond business as usual. [emphasis mine] In this he is clear: quotes are quotes. One does not attribute a quote, even to an unnamed source, that a person did not state. This is among the most basic of journalistic ethics taught in first year Journalism 101 courses. And Weisman's Washington Post editor, Jill Dutt, appears to agree. In a follow-up letter Weisman discusses a conversation he had with his editor in which he states states he was told by her that it is, "[...]Post policy not to construct quotes in any way. Quotation marks are sacrosanct; they denote to readers the exact words uttered by a source." As the Washington Post's policy implies, this is not and should not be standard practice. That the White House Press Office would ask, and receive, the right to completely rewrite a quote after the fact indicates a serious conflict of interest and, potentially, a troubling breach of ethical standards by those in the administration's press office. Without further admonishing Weisman or the integrity of the Washington Post for an isolated incident, an important question to ask is not what went so wrong with this story, but is this common practice in the White House Press Pool among other, lesser known, reporters and publications? In their zest and zeal to gain access to policy makers, have journalistic ethics and integrity among reporters and the press degenerated to the point where they allow the administration to rewrite quotes and confabulate the 'news' on a routine basis? And should this be common practice, does this represent anything resembling a free press? _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
