Reporters Must Get 'Approval'

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Reporters Must Get 'Approval' Before Publishing Biden Admin Quotes—and They Don't Seem Bothered By It


The White House is demanding that reporters get approval from the communications team before publishing quotes from any administration official.

Prior approval of quotes is not unknown. The White House is demanding that interviews be conducted on “background with quote approval.” This is usually done on stories where an aide provides deep background to a story. But requiring prior approval to edit, approve, or disapprove a quote from an aide in any circumstance is nothing less than trying to manage the news.

Politico:
The practice allows the White House an extra measure of control as it tries to craft press coverage. At its best, quote approval allows sources to speak more candidly about their work. At its worst, it gives public officials a way to obfuscate or screen their own admissions and words.
The Biden White House isn’t the first to employ the practice. Many reporters say it’s reminiscent of the tightly controlled Obama White House. The Trump White House used it, too.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Well the Obama White House - at least at the beginning - wouldn't allow any questions to the President in a press conference unless they'd been screened the night before. Hence the Helen Thomas outrage that he was treating them like puppets.

So does this mean we won't hear from "unnamed White House sources"?
 

UglyBear

Well-Known Member
To facilitate approval and distribution of news, there will be established two government newspapers of record, and they will be named “The Truth”, and “The News”. They will be the most truthful and newsy newspapers, like, ever. Cause nobody has done that before.

( to those who don’t speak the lingo, “the Truth” —and “the News” in Russian is “Pravda “ and “Izvestia” ).
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
To facilitate approval and distribution of news, there will be established two government newspapers of record, and they will be named “The Truth”, and “The News”. They will be the most truthful and newsy newspapers, like, ever. Cause nobody has done that before.

( to those who don’t speak the lingo, “the Truth” —and “the News” in Russian is “Pravda “ and “Izvestia” ).
Joke in Russia in the 70's was "there's no Pravda in Izvestia, and no Izvestia in Pravda".

It's not as though we don't ALREADY do stuff like this - when a political party wants to pass a measure they name it something that they can beat their opponent on the head with, like the AFFORDABLE Care Act, which was UN-affordable enough that friends of mine dropped health care and paid cash. We name bills "infrastructure" bills which build no roads, sewers, bridges or anything normally called infrastructure and idiotically call stuff like daycare an "internal infrastructure" in a bizarre mangling of English.

I think we should name ALL bills stuff like "Save the Babies" or "Save Granny" and then put in them whatever we want. And everyone will KNOW it's BS, but at least it's HONEST BS.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Team Biden's Rigid Control of the Press



On May 10, Politico revealed that "If you've read a quote from an administration official in a newspaper or a wire story recently, there's a good chance that the White House communications team had an opportunity to edit it first."

The Biden White House frequently demands that interviews with administration officials be conducted on the grounds of "background with quote approval," according to five White House reporters who aren't with Politico. This means that reporters submit their quotations of administration officials and the White House approves them. "The practice allows the White House an extra measure of control as it tries to craft press coverage," Politico says.

"Craft" is a more delicate word for "manipulate."

This isn't entirely new. Former President Obama apparently did it, too. Former President Trump tried, but less often. Politico suggests reporters are reluctant to say no to "background with quote approval" because it could put them at a disadvantage with their competitors. Editors who want that "insider" feel in their stories will pressure reporters to follow those grounds. Access is everything. Resistance is apparently futile.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
‘A Pernicious, Insidious, Awful Practice’: How The Biden Administration Is Editing Our News


“The White House realized: ‘Hey … we can now control what is in [journalists’] stories by refusing to allow them use anything without our approval,’” said Peter Baker. “It’s a pernicious, insidious, awful practice that reporters should resist.”

Politico confirmed the prevalence of “quote approval” with five White House reporters who work for other outlets. They say that they find the editorial request stifling and of questionable integrity — but they have a problem: They also want access to the administration.

“The only way the press has the power to push back against this is if we all band together,” a reporter said. But that leaves reporters subject to a Prisoner’s Dilemma: If some aspiring journalist buckles to the pressure, the rest lose readership, credibility, and market share.

The White House has done all it can to stoke paranoia about this possibility. When asked about this questionable practice, Jen Psaki did what she does best: release a carefully worded statement.
 
Top