In case you missed it---The New York Times is reviewing its participation in quote-approval requirements frequently insisted upon by sources in Washington. Should the paper require that its reporters refrain from agreeing to quote-approval schemes, the practice could come under further attack. But I’d bet this institution is pretty durable.

Jeff Jarvis in the Guardian brings down the hammer on journalists who do this sort of thing:

I realize there could be an argument in favor of checking quotes with sources: accuracy. But the modern technology of sound recording pretty much handles that. I have also witnessed the fact-checking regime in magazines, both as a writer and a source, and recognize that it provides an opportunity to try to backtrack on what has been said (though the good reporter will have a recording or good notes and a good reputation to fend off a source’s second thoughts). I’ve also been the beneficiary of the public radio show On the Media’s practice of editing out an interviewee’s verbal ticks and pauses, and I’m, um, well, y’know, like … grateful for that. It’s the substance that matters.


*Newsosaur Alan D. Mutter composes a rant on why all those future-of-journalism conferences fail to generate solutions. It’s because they don’t pull in the constituencies that are central to solving the problem. Here they are, in Mutter’s formulation.

* Consumers – The actual people who not only consume journalism but evidently will create growing amounts of it in the future.

* Technologists – The actual people who are creating the platforms on which consumers will get and give information in the future.

* Marketers – The actual people whose advertising purchases historically underwrote journalism and, given the right sorts of products and services, might continue to do so in the future.

* Investors – The actual people who could bankroll innovative commercial or non-profit ventures to sustain journalism in the future.

Good points there. I’d propose a more basic reason: At conferences, there’s a lot of talking and eating and drinking going on. Not enough doing.

*What makes for a viral success on Reddit? One person breaks down the probability scenarios.

*Budget cuts and “restructuring” at Condé Nast. Lost jobs, too.

*Amy Tennery blasts Howard Kurtz for saying that coverage of the Marissa Mayer-Yahoo story was tainted by sexism.

*The Borowitz Report busts a move, to the New Yorker.

*Here’s something: Negotiators for the New York Times Co. are trying to work out separate union contracts for print and digital, as reported by Romenesko. From a guild memo on the latest developments:

With a possible breakthrough looming after nearly a year and a half of negotiations, Times corporate management inexplicably dropped a bomb on the process today by presenting two new comprehensive proposals aimed at negotiating two separate contracts: print and digital.

The hostile move, which would undo months of incremental progress toward a unified contract, came after Guild negotiators proposed an innovative pension plan on June 26 that would address management’s concern about risk, volatility and costs – issues involving the current pension plan that company negotiators have repeatedly called the centerpiece of the talks.

*Two lessons stemming from this MSNBC clip: 1) S.E. Cupp needs some more work reading from the screen; 2) S.E. Cupp needs more work on her arguments.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy