The New York Times Co. (NYSE: NYT), publisher of the third-largest U.S. newspaper by circulation, has banned the submission of quotations for sources to review for approval, reversing a policy that has been commonplace during this presidential race.
In a Thursday memo to staff, Philip Corbett, associate managing editor for standards, announced the new policy. The move was initiated by executive editor Jill Abramson discussed with staff members, wrote Corbett.
Times political reporter Jeremy Peters first wrote about quote approval in July, revealing that both Obama and Romney campaign officials imposed the policy in exchange for access.
Shares of the New York Times were up two cents to $9.52 at Thursday's close.
As many of you know, at Jill's direction and after discussions involving many reporters and editors, we've drafted a new policy about "quote approval." I've included it below.
Feel free to contact me if you have questions.
GUIDELINES ON 'QUOTE APPROVAL'
Despite our reporters' best efforts, we fear that demands for after-the-fact "quote approval" by sources and their press aides have gone too far. The practice risks giving readers a mistaken impression that we are ceding too much control over a story to our sources. In its most extreme forms, it invites meddling by press aides and others that goes far beyond the traditional negotiations between reporter and source over the terms of an interview.
So starting now, we want to draw a clear line on this. Citing Times policy, reporters should say no if a source demands, as a condition of an interview, that quotes be submitted afterward to the source or a press aide to review, approve or edit.
We understand that talking to sources on background -- not for attribution -- is often valuable to reporting, and unavoidable. Negotiation over the terms of using quotations, whenever feasible, should be done as part of the same interview -- with an "on the record" coda, or with an agreement at the end of the conversation to put some parts on the record. In some cases, a reporter or editor may decide later, after a background interview has taken place, that we want to push for additional on-the-record quotes. In that situation, where the initiative is ours, this is acceptable. Again, quotes should not be submitted to press aides for approval or edited after the fact.
We realize that at times this approach will make our push for on-the-record quotes even more of a challenge. But in the long run, we think resetting the bar, and making clear that we will not agree to put after-the-fact quote-approval in the hands of press aides, will help in that effort.
We know our reporters face ever-growing obstacles in Washington, on Wall Street and elsewhere. We want to strengthen their hand in pushing back against the quote-approval process, which all of us dislike.
Being able to cite a clear Times policy should aid their efforts and insulate them from some of the pressure they face. Any potential exceptions to this approach should be discussed with a department head or a masthead editor.