There is a good reason for this: A changed quote represents an altered draft of history in the making, however insignificant that particular story might be. It changes news into public relations, and it stands the relationship between journalist and news source on its head.

What if George Romney – the father of the current Republican candidate for U.S. President, Mitt Romney – had in 1967 been allowed to edit his televised remark that he had been “brainwashed” by the U.S. military when asked why he changed his position on the Vietnam War?

The remark effectively ended his campaign for the presidency. 

Today, 45 years later, what if his son Mitt had been able to alter quotes he made on the London Olympics and Middle Eastern culture during a three-country foreign relations jaunt in which he tossed out verbal gaffes at every stop? His performance suggested to many that Mitt isn’t ready for prime time. 

This is why it was disturbing to me – a fellow who started his journalism career at age 19 on the city desk of the Orlando Sentinel, writing obits, cop shop and Rotary Club news – that some respected media organizations are submitting quotes to both the Obama and Romney campaigns for approval. 

This quote censorship extends beyond the candidates to aides, advisers and even Romney’s sons. The news organizations – including The New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Washington Post – do this at the request of both campaigns so they will continue to have access to those sources.

Quote approval, and the even more egregious story approval, led Washington Post ombudsman Patrick Pexton to write: “Time for some backbone, press corps. What if the White House reporters collectively decided to leave the briefing room empty for a day? What are officials going to do? Fire us? Freeze us out for a few weeks? No, they can’t. They need us as much as we need them. Don’t forget that.”

The ombudsman also referred to embarrassing emails that revealed that a Washington Post education writer had submitted not just quotes but an entire story to University of Texas officials for approval.

University officials didn’t like the first version of the story, so the reporter submitted a second.
In the email, the reporter wrote officials: “I’d like to know of any phrases in the piece you think are too harsh or over-hyped.  … Everything here is negotiable.” Pexton concluded that the reporter forgot that he writes for readers and not for sources. 

“How can we teach Ukrainian reporters good journalism when we have examples such as this with respected publications?”— Kyiv Post chief editor Brian Bonner

When the story about news organizations getting official approval for quotes came out, Kyiv Post chief editor Brian Bonner posed the question: “How can we teach Ukrainian reporters good journalism when we have examples such as this with respected publications?”

If a reporter feels he or she didn’t get a quote right or perhaps didn’t understand the context of the quote, then the journalist has an obligation to go back to the source to make sure it is correct. This happens occasionally. In one-on-one interviews, many journalists carry a recorder.

In many places around the world – particularly in the West – newspapers are under siege as more people turn to electronic forms of news and most publications are unable to make money off their websites. There seems a tendency to relax good journalistic practices. 

After the Watergate scandal that brought down American President Richard Nixon in  1974, the journalism profession soared to new professional and ethical heights in the United States. Every aspiring journalist wanted to be the next Bob Woodard or Carl Bernstein. 

After Watergate, reporters wouldn’t let a source buy so much as a lunch for them, much less give them a football ticket or provide free travel. It was gratifying to me that editors recently turned down several tickets to a Madonna concert offered by a Ukrainian company. The tickets were expensive. The offer crossed the line.

At the Kyiv Post, showing a source a story – without extraordinary extenuating circumstances – is considered a firing offense. I understand that a reporter was dismissed for just such a reason prior to my arrival at the newspaper. 

We need to get back to that earlier time. Or, paraphrasing the Washington Post ombudsman, some journalists need to get a backbone. 

Kyiv Post CEO Michael Willard can be reached at [email protected]