When I started in journalism in the mid-1980s I was given a diktat. Never share a quote in advance with an interview subject. I never did. The logic seemed irrefutable. Your source might try to edit their quote, or take back what they said, or worse, threaten legal action if you publish.
But in the last few years as I’ve returned to more regular reporting after a quarter century hiatus running the Committee to Protect Journalists I’ve begun to reconsider. Certainly, a lot has changed in the intervening decades. First of all, I don’t do breaking news. I write these days for magazines, both in print and online. Many of them use fact checkers. Then there’s the technology. Communication with an engaged source is often instantaneous. It’s easy to have a back and forth, even under deadline pressure.
The prohibition of sharing quotes in advance went hand in glove with another journalistic principle: Push your sources to go on the record. This is the cleanest and clearest arrangement. Not to mention the fact that someone speaking on background could be trying to manipulate you, spinning the story to their advantage while hiding behind anonymity.
These precepts, I have come to believe, represent an antiquated view of journalistic practice that does not reflect the realities of technological change and the shifting power dynamic between journalists and their sources. To be clear, I still think talking to senior government officials or top business leaders on background or off-the-record is a dicey proposition. But these are not the folks I talk to. Many of my sources are quite vulnerable. Others have understandable reasons for being careful about what they say in public.
In such instances, I generally agree to do the interview on background and go back to them via email or text to put quotes on the record. I find that my sources are much more forthcoming, less guarded, more natural in their language, and often willing to share information they would not otherwise divulge. When I go back to my sources to confirm I can use their quote, they readily agree to do so, usually within minutes. They often clarify or amplify the information they originally provided. In other words, I get more information, richer detail, and avoid errors. Since the magazine fact checkers verify quotes as part of their process, I don’t see how doing the same thing myself violates any sort of journalistic principle.
I still think there are many instances in which journalists should insist sources be on the record, and should not agree to allow them to review quotes. But I don’t think it’s necessarily an ethical principle. In many cases it’s a matter of pragmatism and discretion. At the end of the day, giving our sources greater transparency into our process and reassuring them that we are recording their words faithfully and using them in context improves our journalism and better serves our audience. Isn’t that what journalism is all about?
Joel Simon is the Director of the Journalism Protection Initiative at the Craig Newmark School of Journalism at the City University of New York. For 15 years between 2006 and 2021, he served as the executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).