Why Did the NYT Alter Quotes in their Background Story on the Romney Meltdown?
Posted: September 13, 2012 Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, The Media SUCKS, U.S. Politics | Tags: altered quotes, anonymous sources, campaign quote approval, David Sanger, Dylan Byers, Joe Coscarelli, Josh Marshall, journalistic ethics, Mitt Romney, Peter Baker, scrubbed articles 39 CommentsThis is mysterious. In the morning post, I linked to a short piece by Josh Marshall on some disturbing changes the New York Times made its story on how Mitt Romney came to unleash his bizarre attacks on President Obama over a message posted on the website of the American Embassy in Cairo, Egypt on Tuesday.
Marshall wrote:
I’m not sure what’s up with this. But earlier this evening the Times ran a story entitled “Behind Romney’s Decision to Attack Obama on Libya.” The byline was David Sanger and Ashley Parker. The big news out of the story was that Romney himself had been the driver of last night’s decision making. That and a lot of other color and interesting news. As I write, it’s still that piece and lede that’s on the front page. But now it’s been replaced (same url) by an almost unrecognizable piece entitled “A Challenger’s Criticism Is Furiously Returned”, bylined by Peter Baker and Ashley Parker….
The thrust of the piece is dramatically different and, unless I’m missing something, leaves out this critical quote from a Romney senior advisor explaining their rationale. “We’ve had this consistent critique and narrative on Obama’s foreign policy, and we felt this was a situation that met our critique, that Obama really has been pretty weak in a number of ways on foreign policy, especially if you look at his dealings with the Arab Spring and its aftermath.”
So basically, this “senior adviser” was saying that the campaign had built a specific narrative to use against Obama, and the events in Cairo appeared to meet the criteria of the manufactured narrative. Therefore, the decision was made to issue an immediate attack on Tuesday night before they really knew what was happening.
Late this morning, Marshall put followed up with another post.
A number of media reporters have now followed up with reports about the Times switcheroo. And the answer from the Times is that it was part of the normal editing process and the preference for on-the-record quotes over blind quotes. The specific response we got from Eileen Murphy, spokesperson for the Times, reads as follows …
As reporting went on during the day yesterday, we were able to flesh out the story, add more context and get more sources on the record, which is obviously what we prefer. Having said that, we stand by the reporting in all versions of the story.
Peter Baker, who replaced David Sanger as the lead byline, told Buzzfeed, “It’s just normal journalism — as more reporting comes in, you improve the story. On the record Republican criticism beats anonymous Republican criticism.”
But why was the damning quote left out of the second version of the story? Actually the missing quote was the first half of a longer quote, the second part of which was retained in the new version of the article. Here’s the entire original quote:
“We’ve had this consistent critique and narrative on Obama’s foreign policy, and we felt this was a situation that met our critique, that Obama really has been pretty weak in a number of ways on foreign policy, especially if you look at his dealings with the Arab Spring and its aftermath,” one of Mr. Romney’s senior advisers said on Wednesday. “I think the reality is that while there may be a difference of opinion regarding issues of timing, I think everyone stands behind the critique of the administration, which we believe has conducted its foreign policy in a feckless manner.”
Marshall writes:
The first part of that quote makes the advisor seem callow, frivolous, and shabby. We’ve had the critique out there, “this was a situation that met our critique”, and that was good enough for us. We just let fly.
In the edited version of the Times piece, as Politico’s Dylan Byers notes, that quote is replaced by an on-the-record quote from policy director Lanhee Chen …
Mr. Romney’s camp was surprised by the blowback. “While there may be differences of opinion regarding issues of timing,” Mr. Chen said, “I think everyone stands behind the critique of the administration, which we believe has conducted its foreign policy in a feckless manner.”
As you can see, the second portion is identical. So it really sounds like the blind quote was from Chen as well.
What the hell? Is the NYT suddenly in the business of helping the Romney campaign clean up their messes?
In an update to his piece, Politico’s Dylan Byers responds to NYT writer Peter Baker’s quote mentioned above:
UPDATE (11:06 a.m.): Missed this, but Peter Baker talked to the Huffington Post earlier this morning:
“As we reported more through the day, we found Republicans criticizing Gov Romney on the record, so why use an anonymous one?” Baker said. “There are too many blind quotes in the media and we try not to use them when it’s not necessary.”
Here’s why: Because there’s a big difference between “Republicans” and a Mitt Romney campaign adviser.
At New York Magazine, Joe Coscarelli has a piece headlined: Romney Adviser Admitted Libya Flub Before New York Times Scrubbed Story. Coscarelli notes a second quote that was left out of the “scrubbed” NYT article:
A front page New York Times article this morning describes how Mitt Romney “personally approved” his apology-less campaign statement yesterday accusing Barack Obama of sympathizing with terrorists, but an early iteration of the story was far juicier. In a version posted online last night, the Times quoted “an adviser to the campaign who worked in the George W. Bush administration” who went so far as to say that Romney “had forgotten the first rule in a crisis: don’t start talking before you understand what’s happening.” That’s more or less the criticism that was pelted at Romney throughout the day yesterday by pundits, and by President Obama himself, but to hear it from the mouth of an adviser, even an anonymous one, in the Times, really stings. Or stung — that quote has since disappeared from the article.
Coscarelli brings up a stunning possible explanation for the altered/dropped quotes: “Could this be that campaign quote approval we’ve heard so much about?” He then links to a story he wrote in July: Political Campaigns Reserve the Right to Neuter Journalism in Exchange for Access.
A front-page story in the New York Times today describes the process by which reporters at major news organizations — including Bloomberg, the Washington Post, and yes, the Times — agree to let political campaigns not only have veto power over which quotes get used, but allow after-the-fact editing on remarks from insiders. “The quotations come back redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative,” the Times reports.
Afraid of losing their access to top spokesmen and strategists, journalists agree to the tweaks. Both the Obama and Romney campaigns have their own quote-approval demands, and the results are official lines that always stay on-script, lack any off-the-cuff qualities, and on top of that, are often anonymous anyway. And in playing by the rules written for them by those they’re supposed to be covering, print journalists falls further behind the times.
That’s a new one on me. News organizations allowing the subjects of their articles to make changes after the fact? Here’s hoping Josh Marshall or one of the other big bloggers who can get access to the NYT will force them to publicly admit they took orders from the Romney campaign.
CNN posted the latest Romney campaign talking points at midnight last night. They consist of instructions for surrogates on how to avoid dealing with Romney’s horrible behavior in the wake of the deaths of four Americans in Libya.
Kind of neutralizes them as talking points 🙂 I saw the talking points yesterday on CNN complete with suggested questions and answers. All media outlets should do this and save people the trouble of listening to campaign flacks.
In the talking points, Romney is suddenly against the content of the “movie” that led to the murders.
Of course no one did that.
So what exactly was Romney’s complaint about the original statement from the Cairo embassy again? The statement denounced religious intolerance and defended freedom of speech.
Here’s the original statement (now scrubbed from the embassy’s website!):
It was just a flailing ignorant shot taken by a desperate campaign. He has no complaint, except that he may really believe his own version of an Imaginary Obama who can do nothing right. Mitt may have convinced himself he has to save the world, who knows?
I go run errands for a few hours and come back to this! I’m going to read it now!!!
This immediately reminded me of a trend (which I think has ended) for celebrity interviews. A tape of the celebrity answering questions would be sent to a radio station. The questions, provided by the celebrity’s PR person, would also be included with the tape. The station would have their on-air personality record the questions & then splice them into the taped answers. It would appear that the station on-air personality was actually conducting an interview with the celebrity sitting across from them.
This whole story smacks of anything but free speech. Politicians telling the media what questions they will answer, what questions the media is permitted to ask. Isn’t this the kind of thing our leaders accused Pravda of doing? Only reporting what leaders wanted them to report. And how long was it before Romney condescended to interviews on any network but Fox Propaganda Network? And the Repugs accuse Obama of being The Communist in Chief? As my mother would say, “that’s the pot calling the kettle black.” Or maybe it’s bait & switch – it’s all about sales & profits after all, isn’t it?
But politicians telling the media what quotes it can publish and causing a major newspaper to completely rewrite a story? That’s beyond the pale.
Agreed. It just made me think about those canned interviews. How is this latest from Romney not an infringement of the American principle of free speech?
I apologize for the OT comment but the Fed has kicked off QE3 and apparently it’s got no set expiration date. People have wanted this for over two years. Wonder if House republicans will want to impeach Bernanke now?
Fed bets big in new push to rescue economy
Thanks. I hadn’t heard about it.
That’s why I don’t want any politicians with the FED. If the Republicans would’ve had their way, all the help the FED has given the economy would’ve stopped so they could have tanked Obama’s re-election even more. They’d have forced us into a depression if they thought it would help them return to power.
They are finally going to honor the employment half of their charter. It’s about damn time!
Romney says QE3 proves Obama has failed.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/romney-camp-fed-action-proves-obama-failed
Rmoney thinks the sun rising means Obama failed. 🙂
Can’t imagine why Rmoney might be panicing.
Poll shows Obama up five on Romney in Colorado
I don’t like Romney, he is one cluster fuck, and the media need not play the game……….
LA blogger tried to warn city council about anti-islam film in June.
There’s a post at TPM about sheriff’s deputies being called to Nakouli’s house but no one answered the door. Then reporters talked to a renter there. WTF are these people and WTF is going on?
Here’s the LA Times story.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/fearful-anti-muslim-filmmaker-calls-authorities-to-his-home.html#more
OT, folks but I just received this email with a petition asking for clemency for Terry Williams. He is a young black man who was sexually abused by older men from the time he was 6 years old. None of this was presented to the jury during his trial for murdering the last man who raped him repeatedly for 5 years, beginning when Terry was 13. Here’s the link to the petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/governor-tom-corbett-pa-board-of-pardons-district-attorney-seth-williams-grant-clemency-to-terrance-williams-survivor-of-child-sexual-abuse?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=10675&alert_id=haqebjIzZe_rVybpHYuNh
signed.
Thanks, ralph.
McClatchy reporters interview the emergency room doctor who attempted to save Amb Stevens. They also found the reason he was in Benghazi.
Benghazi doctor: Stevens showed no signs of life when he arrived in emergency room
Obama leading Romney by 10 in Michigan.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-obama-leads-romney-by-10-in-michigan?ref=fpb
Oh this is what I was hoping for, thank you BB for doing this…. I have another football game tonight so I have to read it later, can’t wait!
2012
Had to share this with y’all, Bebe and Jake…little pains in the ass!
2008
They sure have changed…
Great looking kids there!
Handsome, handsome children! You must be so proud! Eat up these days with a spoon as I can attest they are all too short (no matter how much they can drive you crazy!) and all that is left is a bagful of memories.
They look picture perfect to me!
Thanks JJ. They’re adorable.
Absolutely beautiful kids. You done good, girl. Hope Jake is all better.
Nice big smile on my face……….hope they win.
Wonderful pictures, beautiful kids!!
What fine-looking kids!
Nice pics, you’re such a caring mom, they’re lucky kids.
Thank you everybody, I could not help but share their pictures. Both the Middle School and JV won their games. Everyone is very happy! Jake scored 2 extra points, and tomorrow my daughter will be doing the halftime show at the highschool game.
Anyway, you all have been busy! It’s gonna take a while for me to catch up tonight.
😉
Mitt Romney has shown that he should never, ever be let near the nuclear codes for any reason. This man is unfit to lead.
NYT says it didn’t get any complaints from the Romney campaign about the story the scrubbed.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/ny-times-romney-libya.php?ref=fpb
No complaints, but they did get orders, they mean.
Yes, probably from the publisher.
Holy shit BB, this is amazing. Especially the stuff about “final approval” from the campaign. Wow!!!!