NY Times admits journalists let politicians edit what they print.

[myrkul]

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/us/politics/latest-word-on-the-campaign-trail-i-take-it-back.html?_r=1

The quotations come back redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative.

[odolvlobo]

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.

[TheButterZone]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

[FreeMoney]

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