Replies

someone from T-online contacted me, to do an interview with me. Best regards to that gentleman. He wrote very nicely and then I answered him. I said, I would like to and that I would gladly answer questions, but that I’d like to read it through and approve the article before publication. He said "Nah, I don't do that."

Approving the article is different than merely checking quotations. No honest reporter would require a subject approve the article.

honest reporter

Damned few of these left in the world.

Except if they are part of the White House Press Corps.

https://nypost.com/2021/05/11/wh-reporters-fume-over-biden-admins-media-policy-report/

No honest reporter would require a subject approve the article.

There's you first problem right there.

For 95% + of so-called journalists, those two words do not go together.

Fido969 wrote: Approving the article is different than merely checking quotations. No honest reporter would require a subject approve the article.

As freeper Red6 posted:

White House reporters are seething over a policy that requires them to submit quotes from interviews with Biden administration officials to the communications team for approval, editing or veto, according to a report on Tuesday.

 The White House is demanding that reporters who conduct interviews with administration officials do so under conditions known as “background with quote approval,” Politico reported. 

The information from the interview can be used in a story, but for a reporter to be able to attach a name to the quote, the reporter must transcribe the comments and send them to the communications team, the report said.

 At that point, the White House can approve them, edit them or veto their use. 

https://nypost.com/2021/05/11/wh-reporters-fume-over-biden-admins-media-policy-report/

Alina Lipp wrote:

Just an example: someone from T-online contacted me, to do an interview with me. Best regards to that gentleman. He wrote very nicely and then I answered him. I said, I would like to and that I would gladly answer questions, but that I’d like to read it through and approve the article before publication. Then he said: “Nah, I don’t do that.”

I had the same thing happen before, I think it was with Der Spiegel magazine. It was a long time ago. I ask myself, if you don’t agree with my checking my own statements beforehand, then you’re basically admitting that you intend to change my statements, in a way that I wouldn’t agree with afterwards. So, it’s unbelievable. What kind of journalism is that?

Just show the truth, and statements from people whom you interviewed should be what they said. That’s how it should be. It’s unbelievable what has become of this world, and what journalism has become, especially in the West. Oh well. Bye