I think it is not unreasonable for politicians to be able to edit the quotes. It makes it so they don't have to (or can't) later say, "what I meant to say was ...". It also ensures that the quote is accurate.
Lol
Topic: NY Times admits journalists let politicians edit what they print. (Read 839 times)
September 22, 2012, 02:23:28 PM
Lol
September 22, 2012, 01:55:08 AM
I think it is not unreasonable for politicians to be able to edit the quotes. It makes it so they don't have to (or can't) later say, "what I meant to say was ...". It also ensures that the quote is accurate.
Recording devices.
Exactly. Tape recorders are not new things. Even video recorders are well established. Accuracy is not an issue. And if you say what you mean, and mean what you say, you never have to go back and say "What I meant to say was..." Politicians don't get that luxury, anyway. You're on the record. That means you can't change it.
September 22, 2012, 01:36:40 AM
I think it is not unreasonable for politicians to be able to edit the quotes. It makes it so they don't have to (or can't) later say, "what I meant to say was ...". It also ensures that the quote is accurate.
Recording devices.
September 22, 2012, 01:32:20 AM
I think it is not unreasonable for politicians to be able to edit the quotes. It makes it so they don't have to (or can't) later say, "what I meant to say was ...". It also ensures that the quote is accurate.
September 21, 2012, 02:50:23 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/us/politics/latest-word-on-the-campaign-trail-i-take-it-back.html?_r=1
Quote
The quotations come back redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative.
Jump to: