When I was a young journalist, I was warned by my editor never to let anyone «check their quotes» before my article went to press. He told me: «They won't just check them. They'll change them. And then they'll start changing the rest of the article too.»
I've ignored his advice on several occasions. Sometimes because agreeing to let a person check their quotes is the only way to get an interview. Sometimes because I'm writing about technical matters and want to get my facts right. And other times because I've been hired to write an internal document or newsletter for a company, so I'm obliged to give them final approval. It's always a nightmare. Because it's not only the interviewee who wants to change things - it's also their PR, their boss and several of their relatives. The article comes back so mangled with changes that it no longer makes sense. So I was surprised to read that The New York Times has only just outlawed quote approval, because «it puts control over the content of journalism in the wrong place.» Meaning politicians. But every quote-checker suffers from the same delusion: that they can write an article better than a professional journalist. Which is odd, because I'd never be presumptuous enough to assume I could do their job. For a recent book about the beauty industry, I interviewed a plastic surgeon. But I didn't touch his scalpel.
