I read David Carr’s latest column on quote approvals with great interest… but I felt that all things said, it was a lot of trees and no forest.

Basically, the piece – which you should read – speaks to recent admissions that quote approval has become a norm in a lot of coverage out there, not just in meaningless endeavors like filmmaking, but in politics and business. All very interesting. But my big problem, mostly with Traditional Media (Old Media, if you will), is that tone is set by so many unnamed sources, most of whom are legit – which is why papers like NYT indulge them – but have a vested interest in spinning the story. And the reporters and their editors would rather have a piece that promotes controversy over one that is reported down to the details, perhaps undercutting the edge of the idea that the reporter started with or was fed by an unnamed source.

To me, this is the virus and the quote thing is a minor pimple on the surface.

I got out of the quote game a long, long time ago. Why? Not because I couldn’t get quotes or get people on the phone, but because as soon as you take people on the record, they have an investment in your stories that starts the manipulation ball rolling… if it hasn’t already rolled over you by the time you are typing it up. I respect Carr and others who still live by the foundational idea of tradition and the work of going out trolling for the money quotes for hours, days, or even weeks. But I cover an industry where a quote is the easiest and most effective way to lie.

For me, this is an endless source of conflict. In my own work, it is about knowing that my closest allies will lie to me whenever they feel they need to do so. This is their job, just is my job is to not allow myself to get played. Moreover, they are out there telling that same lie to many, many others, often at major media outlets, and they will get it printed/legitimized, which means that I am often reduced to being some “fucking blogger” going against the grain of a media whitewash of something minor or major. And still, this is the job of professionals in the industry. Not just publicists, but all the way to the top of the food chain. They set an agenda and then there is a pitch. And if you aren’t buying, they have dozens of other potential suckers out there desperate for attention, respect, and a scoop.

That brings me to the other side of this conflict for me, which is trying not to feel endless distaste and disrespect for those who just keep publishing what they have been told, often convincing themselves that because the person telling them the lie is titled “CEO” or “President” that they wouldn’t possibly lie. Ha.

I am not saying that everything anyone says to an entertainment reporter is a lie or that every entertainment reporter is a sucker waiting for the hook. What I think is that 98% of the stories about the entertainment industry is grist for the mill. All politics are personal and if you are the one changing agencies, it means a lot to you and those who lost you or who signed you. But aside from a part of the industry being reminded about where everyone stands on the chess board, this is meaningless information. And there is a ton of pure press release journalism. I know, everyone is out there fighting for position and getting 2 outside quotes for every press release requires time on the phone… but come on… seriously… just because you heard a rumor and told the studio and so they gave you the information they were going to be asking you to publish next week a few days early… really… is this important work?

And then there is the 2%. Fox makes a dramatic change in movie leadership. A studio lays out its strategy for the next number of years. Corporations make huge decisions about the future of media formatting. Etc. Is there more than one of these stories a month? Rarely. And when they do break, the reporting/analysis around them, as you read each outlet’s pieces, you can see that the same sources – in most cases – are feeding the same off-the-record angles to as many writers as will spin the spin. Three outlets saying the same thing is not a consensus in this era… it’s a church choir.

And yes, I am writing about entertainment journalism. That’s where I live.

But I wasn’t shocked by NYT’s Judith Miller getting her tit caught in a ringer over Weapons of Mass Destruction… because she was telling NYT readers what a lot of people in Washington actually believed. NYT doesn’t have a secret service working for them. Their intel is only as good as the intel being given to the leaders who are either leaking directly or a step or two from the people whose names are on those confidential memos. I have noted many times that my sense is – because neither of them have ever said otherwise in public, as far as I know – that The Clintons believed there were weapons on mass destruction because they were briefed that there were WMDs in production, even before W ran with that faux nuclear ball. Of course, Miller was wrong, as was the intel. And she was strung up because she was on the wrong side of the truth and the liberal media. (There is plenty of conservative media… but there is a lot of liberal media, especially in the big outlets.)

Let’s not forget what we, as journalists, actually do. We report what others are doing/saying/thinking/trying to get away with. Every story from the best intended journalists is based on trust, not on first-hand experience. (That is, unless like Carr, we report something on our first-hand experiences. But that wasn’t in the paper.)

People who ask journalists for quote approval don’t trust journalists. That is their job. They are right to ask, even if journalists trying to cover news should never say, “yes.”

Journalists should not trust people who quote… and especially not people who only quote without attribution. But all too often, we are not doing our jobs. We are trying to be first… trying to get attention… trying to get access… etc. If you’re doing feature writing (or DP/30s, for that matter), fine. These are not news breaking instruments… at least not any real news of any real consequence. But quotes? A small issue.

Now… if you want to get me started on major papers using academics to fill out the need for quotes on stories when they are physically and intellectually disconnected from the industries and issues on which they opine so freely? Well… that’s another story.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
•