Sunday Column: Who Controls the Story?

JEREMY PETERS was doing a routine reporting job earlier this year when he stumbled across something that, as he put it, “smelled funny.”

Mr. Peters, a New York Times political reporter, had asked an Obama press representative at the campaign's Chicago headquarters to set up some interviews for an article on the digital outreach to voters. As he recalls it, the aide responded with some ground rules: Interviews were on background only, not on the record. To use direct quotations in his article, Mr. Peters would need to e-mail them to campaign press aides, to be approved for use, nixed or modified. The control was very much in the hands of the news sources.

Mr. Peters was put off by the idea, and wrote an article about this increasingly common practice, which The Times published on its front page in July. It caused a lot of talk in journalism and political circles. It wasn't just The Times that was subjected to the practice, nor was it just the Obama campaign making these rules; it was happening throughout Washington and Wall Street reporting.

Now, months later, the phrase “quote approval” is infamous, and the practice, in its most extreme form, is banned at The Times. This month, Times editors circulated a memorandum to reporters that said, in part:

“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 form, 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.”

It then drew “a clear line” for reporters: “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.”

The executive editor, Jill Abramson, a veteran Washington reporter and editor herself, talked to me about the practice, which grew partly as a result of laudable efforts to limit anonymous quotes - giving officials the chance to approve quotes if they would put their names behind them. Quote approval “puts so much control in the wrong place,” she said. “The journalist should not be a supplicant.”

Since the new policy was disseminated, some media critics and public relations people have expressed skepticism, saying that it is very likely to be worked around and ignored.

“I think the new policy is comical,” said Christopher Ullman, who handles global communications for the Carlyle Group in Washington, and has been the spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget and for Arthur Levitt Jr., when he was chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. In practice, he said, sources will still get to say what goes on the record. “It's the same, except you have to cut the deal before you hang up.”

David Leonhardt, the Washington bureau chief, sees it differently.

“It's unacceptable to have top government or corporate officials demand the ability to edit their public statements as a condition of making them, and then frequently have their staff turn those words into anodyne memo-speak,” he said. The Times is “willing to accept that some officials may not want to have their voices in a story as a result.”

Background reporting, in which sources give journalists information if they are not identified, remains a necessary and valuable part of journalism and is still allowed, he notes. The new policy provides a gray area, allowing reporters to conduct background interviews and then (preferably but not always in the same interview session, and never as a prerequisite for the interview) go back to sources for approval to get some quotations on the record.

“We want to draw a bright line against some practices,” like having press aides edit an official's quote, Mr. Leonhardt said. “But we do not want to create a sweeping policy that ultimately keeps information from our readers.”

The policy achieves that balance, he believes, and “reaction from reporters suggests that they agree.”

Mr. Ullman, who said he was speaking for himself and not his company, does see something positive. “Taking a fresh look at existing practices that can be subject to abuse is a good thing,” he said. But, he added, “I don't like the demonization of public relations people - that we're the problem and that journalists are the solution. It's not just bad P.R. people and manipulative spinners. The other part is ‘gotcha' journalists” who want to embarrass public officials with a juicy quote.

As for Mr. Peters, he finds the new policy reasonable and thinks readers will be appreciative.

“I've never received as much reader response,” he said. “They were appalled but glad we were taking it on. They seemed to be saying, ‘Thank you for taking the risk of short-term embarrassment for the sake of correcting this.' ”

Creating these new rules was absolutely the right move for The Times. In fact, the “bright line” should have been drawn much earlier. While Mr. Peters's article brought attention to quote approval, the issue was certainly no secret among the reporters and editors who were going along. The Times and other news organizations should never have put themselves in this position.