According to the Times, it was difficult to find any news outlet that did not agree to let officials approve and edit their comments before publication. Bloomberg, the Washington Post, Reuters, and even the New York Times were among the establishment media services that had consented to interviews under those terms, Peters reported.
In a startling front-page report published this month, the New York Times openly admitted that reporters from virtually every national media outlet were letting the administration, as well as the Barack Obama and Mitt Romney presidential campaigns, alter the quotes in news stories before publication. Analysts, the alternative media, and even some establishment figures promptly lambasted the controversial practice, sparking something of an international scandal while leading to demands for an immediate end to what opponents called “censorship.”
Several establishment media outlets have already announced that they would no longer permit the practice. Others promised to offer readers full disclosure if sources were allowed to review and approve their statements before publication. But the uproar over the news is still growing, and it is likely to shake the bizarre — critics say “corrupt” — U.S. media culture to its core.
“Quote approval is standard practice for the Obama campaign, used by many top strategists and almost all midlevel aides in Chicago and at the White House,” wrote Jeremy Peters in the explosive Times article, noting that the Romney camp engages in similar censorship. “It is also commonplace throughout Washington and on the campaign trail.”
Obama, of course, touted himself as the pro-transparency candidate. Voters almost certainly did not have censorship in exchange for information in mind when they voted for him. The administration and the Obama campaign, perhaps ironically, refused to comment on the record when asked by reporters about the practice.
[…]
