Whitehouse demands reporters allows them to edit quotes

[JonC]

I just told you why

Not really. The article says Biden, Trump, and Obama did that. You just said that you do not believe Trump did that.

Is the article reliable or is it unreliable. That's what I want to know. If it is unreliable then why do we think that Biden did it? If it is reliable then why do we think Trump did not?

 

[Revmitchell]

Not really. The article says Biden, Trump, and Obama did that. You just said that you do not believe Trump did that.

Is the article reliable or is it unreliable. That's what I want to know. If it is unreliable then why do we think that Biden did it? If it is reliable then why do we think Trump did not?

sigh please go back and read all I said good grief

 

[JonC]

sigh please go back and read all I said good grief

I did.

Basicaly the article (not a liberal article) says if a reporter talked to someone from the Trump administration, they were not allowed to quote them on the record unless they allow the White House to tweak and edit it as they see fit. This is common practice, BUT the Biden administration does it more.

 

[Use of Time]

Let me summarize this thread. Mitch posted an article that he did not read. He read it as a knock on Biden but didn’t realize it lumped in Trump as well. He is too proud to admit this so now he is arguing with Jon because Jon agrees with the article he himself posted. Yes Mitch is mad at Jon for agreeing with his OP. Welcome to the Baptist Board everybody.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Not really. The article says Biden, Trump, and Obama did that. You just said that you do not believe Trump did that.

Is the article reliable or is it unreliable. That's what I want to know. If it is unreliable then why do we think that Biden did it? If it is reliable then why do we think Trump did not?

I noticed that in the article, which thus leaves me with more questions than answers.

It has long been obvious that reporters use "anonymous" sources not allowed to speak on the record, and not just related to the WH.

To what extent have been and are admin sources limited? That would be a needed clarification.


But Trump had supposed legitimate admin sources lying about him anonymously. That was a real problem, one Biden is highly unlikely to have, given that the Dem MSM serves as state media.

 

[JonC]

I noticed that in the article, which thus leaves me with more questions than answers.

It has long been obvious that reporters use "anonymous" sources not allowed to speak on the record, and not just related to the WH.

To what extent have been and are admin sources limited? That would be a needed clarification.


But Trump had supposed legitimate admin sources lying about him anonymously. That was a real problem, one Biden is highly unlikely to have, given that the Dem MSM serves as state media.

I do not doubt this the practice of the Whitehouse. Too much is at stake for whoever is in power. I suspect this may be why Trumps tweets and not necessarily his Whitehouse quotes garnered the most controversy. It is easier to police your words with a team of professionals doing the heavy lifting.

What I wonder is just how much we really know about these people. It appears Biden used this when campaigning (which does make sense, but calls into question the freedom of the press).

 

[Gold Dragon]

Seems like a smart negotiating tactic by sources. When the reporter asks if you are willing to go on the record, the response should be “If you want my name on the article, I get a say in how my quotes appear in the final edit. Otherwise I’m just making an anonymous statement”.

It prevents journalists from blatantly misrepresenting the source. I’m sure folks on all sides of the aisle have been doing this for a long time. I would say any source that doesn’t do this is much too trusting of journalists.

 

[JonC]

Seems like a smart negotiating tactic by sources. When the reporter asks if you are willing to go on the record, the response should be “If you want my name on the article, I get a say in how my quotes appear in the final edit. Otherwise I’m just making an anonymous statement”.

It prevents journalists from blatantly misrepresenting the source. I’m sure folks on all sides of the aisle have been doing this for a long time. I would say any source that doesn’t do this is much too trusting of journalists.

It also allows people to change the meaning of their (or others) words entirely to escape awkward moments.

 

[Revmitchell]

I did.

Basicaly the article (not a liberal article) says if a reporter talked to someone from the Trump administration, they were not allowed to quote them on the record unless they allow the White House to tweak and edit it as they see fit. This is common practice, BUT the Biden administration does it more.

give me a break politico is a far left source

 

[Gold Dragon]

It also allows people to change the meaning of their (or others) words entirely to escape awkward moments.

Yes exactly. If I agree to give an interview to a reporter and say something that was awkward or that could easily be misconstrued, I would not want my name to go in the article. You don’t want a simple mistake to stay on record forever.

 

[Gold Dragon]

give me a break politico is a far left source

Politico is the source of the article you posted in the OP. What you are doing is the definition of cherry picking.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Seems like a smart negotiating tactic by sources. When the reporter asks if you are willing to go on the record, the response should be “If you want my name on the article, I get a say in how my quotes appear in the final edit. Otherwise I’m just making an anonymous statement”.

It prevents journalists from blatantly misrepresenting the source. I’m sure folks on all sides of the aisle have been doing this for a long time. I would say any source that doesn’t do this is much too trusting of journalists.

This is getting at the heart of the matter. The Dem MSM propensity to lie, especially in favor of the Dem Progressive Left, is notorious. They are already practically deepstate media.

This makes the Biden admin desire to further limit their "freedom" to report all the more laughable, and the Biden admin all the more suspect.

Their blackout during the border crisis is a key indicator of just how nefarious this admin is.

 

[Gold Dragon]

This is getting at the heart of the matter. The Dem MSM propensity to lie, especially in favor of the Dem Progressive Left, is notorious. They are already practically deepstate media.

If what you say is true, the Trump administration and the right are part of it too since this practice is not unique to the left or Biden administration according to the source that is quoted in the OP.

If the source is lying, they will have their name on record as lying and can be held accountable for it.

 

[777]

it wasn't a very clear article IMO, the real Leftico one is better at explaining the origins of this policy:

Reporters fume at White House 'quote approval' rules - POLITICO

I'm no reporter but from that, it sounds like the WH reporters originally did this during the last Obama term in order to get staff "on the record" but then the WH realized it could be used to further control the narrative, as if that's hard for any D WH to do.

This policy has remained in place since 2012, the Trump administration didn't invoke it often. and when they did, the MSM would just go back to "anonymous sources" or "an unnamed top spokesperson".

But Biden did this even when he was a candidate, and seems like you'd want quote approval for somebody in his condition. The press whining about it tells me somebody in the WH is making some money quotes they later have to squash or else be disciplines, as in limited or no access to the WH if they don't obey. Ridin' with Biden/

 

[Revmitchell]

Politico is the source of the article you posted in the OP. What you are doing is the definition of cherry picking.

Sigh so I have to believe it all or nothing? Of course not, I have given good reason for my position. Lefties like I said like to say both sides do something when they are forced to admit their own side does something wrong. It’s just a way minimizing their own failures .

It’s never an all or nothing option unless your agenda needs it to be.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Sigh so I have to believe it all or nothing? Of course not, I have given good reason for my position. Lefties like I said like to say both sides do something when they are forced to admit their own side does something wrong. It’s just a way minimizing their own failures .

It’s never an all or nothing option unless your agenda needs it to be.

ie cherry picking

 

[Revmitchell]

ie cherry picking

umm no it’s clear you don’t really know what that is. Maybe you should go look it up

 

[Gold Dragon]

Sure

Cherry picking - Wikipedia

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position

 

[Revmitchell]

Sure

Cherry picking - Wikipedia

great so what “ data” from the op am I ignoring.

 

[Gold Dragon]

great so what “ data” from the op am I ignoring.

i doubt Trump did it

Ignores the source of the OP that says

Reporters fume at White House 'quote approval' rules

The Trump White House used it, too.