I understand this for big name politicians who have PR operations writing their "answers" but for more ordinary folks+
+academics, for whom precision matters, this is a bad practice. Let them see—not as veto but for precision.
-
-
The thing is, “this is inaccurate” is only one of the many reasons sources object to a quote
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
alongside “I wish you’d picked this other thing I said” and “Ooh, yep, I said this, but I wanna take it back” and
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
and “Hmm, now that I see it, my boss isn’t going to like this” & “We talked 30 min and you’re only using 1 quote?”
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
and many more.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
only times I’ve let sources see things pre-pub is when there are technical questions I want to make sure I nailed
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
but again, the interests of journalists and the interests of people we interview are often not in alignment
-
What is the interest in not letting an academic be precise about their statement? I've seen so many horrible examples.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
you certainly treat a pol diff from an academic from a corp PR dept, sure
-
Ok. I was just pointing out "no email" is not always the best policy: depends on interviewee / goals /resources.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.