Not Your Sweetie

A journalist's confession (courtesy - Atrios):

From JONATHAN WEISMAN, Economics Writer, Washington Post:
In the wake of Seymour Hersh's open statements about the way the
White House treats the press, I feel compelled to relate a personal
story that illustrates how both the White House and the press have
allowed manipulation of the printed word in Washington to get out of
hand. This is a bit of a confession as well as an appeal to the White
House and my fellow reporters to rethink the way journalism is
practiced these days.

Recently, I was working on a profile of the now-departed chairman of
the White House Council of Economic Advisers, R. Glenn Hubbard. I
dutifully went through the White House press office to talk to an
administration economist about Hubbard's tenure, and a press office
aide helpfully got me in touch with just the person I wanted. The
catch was this: The interview would be off the record. Any quotes I
wanted to put into the newspaper would have to be e-mailed to the
press office. If approved, the quotation could be attributed to a White
House official. (This has become fairly standard practice.)

Since the profile focused on Hubbard's efforts to translate relatively
arcane macroeconomic theory into public policy, the quote I wanted
referenced the president's effort to end the double taxation of
dividends: "This is probably the most academic proposal ever to
come out of an administration." The press office said it was fine, but
the official wanted a little change. Instead, the quote was to read,
"This is probably the purest, most far reaching economic proposal
ever to come out of an administration." I protested that the point of
the quote was the word "academic," so the quote was again amended
to state, "This is probably the purest, most academic, most far
reaching economic proposal ever to come out of an administration."

What appeared in the Washington Post was, "This is probably the
purest, most academic ... economic proposal ever to come out of an
administration." What followed was an angry denunciation by the
White House press official, telling me I had broken my word and
violated journalistic ethics.

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.