The lid is off, and the stink is in the air.
Politicians and celebrities are getting prior approval before publication.
Granted, for the moment this applies mostly to stuff within quotation marks as part of a continuing effort to make sure candidates don't go so far as to prove their incompetence, but it's not a big step to where the entire piece gets a final rinse by the message managers before publication.
It has long been true that interview subjects and their minions have wanted to control the final version of what gets into print, but they seldom got it. Attempts to control the news media have long been around as long as there have been news media. And government officials, even at the local level, have been fond of saying such things as, "If the press wasn't here, I'd have something to say about that."
Occasionally, however, when there is sufficient lead time, an article may be routed to the subject for review of factual information. (Emphasis: Facts only, not how the factual information is treated.) But just as often, the piece comes back rewritten and revised to cut out what the subject deems unfavorable.
Good reporters and editors ignore the rewrites, and remind the subject that the review was for factual information only, not for prior approval.
In addition, there have been numerous reports recently that politicians have been demanding, and getting, prior approval of quotes as a condition of an interview.
Competition among news outlets has enabled politicians to specify that without a condition of prior approval, there will be no interview.
Also, the current issue of The New Yorker, in a feature piece on J.K. Rowling, reports that agents for the author asked for, and got, extensive prior approval from The Times of London on many aspects of a proposed article. The New Yorker did not, however, grant prior approval on its piece.
The bottom line is this: If you don't want to see it in print, TV or on the Internet, don't say it.
And that's the way it should be.
No comments:
Post a Comment