Psst. Here's the Quote I'd Like
After being caught feeding a scientist a quote, Joe Romm impugns my profession with this rationalization (emphasis added):
It is exceedingly common in regular journalism to ask people for a quote that makes a very specific point “” I’ve been asked many times by reporters to do similar things.
I’ve never done this during my career as a magazine journalist. I don’t know any magazine writer that would do such a thing. Perhaps it happens in the newspaper world, but I’d be shocked if it occurs in the the way Romm suggests.
At any rate, one of Romm’s constant themes at Climate Progress is that the mainstream media is incompetent and unscrupulous when it comes to climate reporting. Well, feeding a source a quote is a serous breach of journalistic ethics. At NYU, where I’ve been an adjunct journalism professor, I couldn’t imagine telling a student this was acceptable behavior. In fact, in the five years I’ve taught classes there, I can’t recall when a student has even asked if this was acceptable behavior. I mean, it just feels wrong to do that kind of thing.
So now I’m tempted to go back and look at stories that Romm’s been quoted in, say, the last year, and ask those journalists if they ever fed Romm a quote. I suspect that Romm is trying to rationalize his own behavior with the kind of lazy practice that perhaps happened with regularity in a past era–maybe even at the Times Herald Record in the 1960s and 1970s, which is where Romm first learned all about journalism, when his parents were at the helm of that Hudson Valley paper. But I wouldn’t want to impugn his parents’ legacy or that paper’s reputation with such an accusation. Maybe I’ll just call up some old friends who worked at that fine paper in recent years and see if it was “exceedingly common” for them to feed sources quotes when they reported their stories.
Update: Romm is blaming the ruckus over his journalistic impropriety on Marc Morano, Roger Pielke, Jr., and of course, Stephen Dubner. He’s also doubling down on his defense:
Yes, I did ask him [Caldiera] to put in his own words a quote stating that the Superfreaks had misrepresented his views “” because I knew very well that they had based on my previous emails with him (and my reading of his work and having heard him talk). It is exceedingly common in regular journalism to ask people for a quote that makes a very specific point “” I’ve been asked many times by reporters to do similar things.
Man, Romm really learned the wrong lessons from his parents. But here’s the latest rationalization that is worth noting, which he offers in response to a reader comment:
I have sat in interviews with leading journalists — famous ones — where they ask me the same question in slightly different form literally 8 times to try to get me to say precisely what they want me to say. I didn’t do that here at all.
You know what, I can believe part of this–the part where a journalist asks the same question in “slightly different form” numerous times–because I’ve done it, and I’m certain that many journalists have done it as well. But it’s not because we want to elicit a specific point or even a sound bite. It’s because many scientists tend to talk in jargon and honest journalists, without trying to put words in a scientist’s mouth, simply try to coax a more reader-friendly interpretation of a study or policy.
I’ve never asked a question eight consecutive times, but I have, on occasion, asked variations of the same question two or three times to a scientist. Ask any science journalist and I bet they’d own up to the same thing. Nothing nefarious there, no attempt to get the scientist to say something to advance a writer’s political or ideological agenda, just an honest attempt to get the scientist to speak in a language that my mother can understand. Anyway, nice try, Joe.
I agree that it is/would be an extraordinary breach of journalistic ethics for a reporter to attempt, let alone succeed, to plant a quote, regardless of the medium of distribution — magazine, newspaper, TV, online, radio. For it to be a regular event implies to my mind that the source must routinely deal with the most unscrupulous of writers…I dare not even dignify them by calling them journalists or reporters or editors. If they engage in such practices…they’re not and don’t deserve to be so identified. A sad sign of times in rapidly changing nature of just who is and is not a journalist and what is and is not journalism. But in the end, it’s simple: Planting quotes is NOT journalism.
No-one could have predicted that Kloor would come down on the side of Dubner’s shoddy journalism.
#2:
On the one hand we’ve got somebody accused of shoddy journalism making what appears to be a good faith effort too own up to his mistakes.
On the other hand we’ve got somebody committing a very serious journalistic impropriety, and then casually declaring that everybody in the profession does it.
Romm has put himself on the wrong side (again) of an argument he might have won by overreaching.
I think that this one is going to have lasting consequences.
Tim,
How can you possibly infer that from my post? I’m not talking about the book or the criticism of it, though if you must know, I’m favorably inclined to William Connolley judgment.
At any rate, my post is merely discusses Romm’s attempt to feed a quote to Ken Caldeira. That’s it. Since you bothered to come over and post a sarcastic comment that bears no relevance to my actual post, how about letting us know what you think of Romm’s tactic. You okay with that sort of thing? I mean, there’s no denying he tried to do this, since you can read Romm’s defense of it on his own post. So, what about that? Is that the kind of journalism you approve of?
WAHT!?
You see it every night on the news. “Sir, could you comment specifically on how this bill would affect seniors?” “Sir, could you respond to critics who say your proposal would do x?”
I’ve been following this issue for a few day. Just now I found that the book HASN’T BEEN RELEASED YET…. good grace…
Another reason for asking the same question 8 times in slightly different times is in response to sources dodging the question the first 7 times.
2. “No-one could have predicted that Kloor would come down on the side of Dubner’s shoddy journalisn.”
Thank you for saving me the trouble of making the point that any sensible person could have predicted that you (Lambert) would revisit the gutter in defense of Romm’s disgusting “I-want-to-trash-them” tactics.
Now please explain again how climate change has NOT been politicized.
I think Romm was refreshingly honest. Most journalists won’t tell you what kind of a story they trying to write and you don’t find out till you see your views mangled in their story. If Dubner had been up front that he was trying to make a case for geoengineering being superior to mitigation, it is possible that Caldeira could have emphasised his belief that it is musch worse and Dubner wouldn’t have written that Caldeira endorses it when he doesn’t.
Tim,
Your comment reveals a faulty understanding of journalistic reporting. Newspaper and magazine reporters don’t have a pre-determined story in mind while they’re interviewing sources. This is not how we operate. (I won’t speak for book authors.)
For example, if I write a story on geoengineering for a science publication, it would be perfectly fine for me to tell all the scientists I’m interviewing that this is the topic of the story I’m working on. That’s customary.
But Joe Romm went way beyond what any respectable journalist would do when telling Ken Caldiera that he wanted to “trash” Dubner and Levitt and then asking for a specific quote that supported this aim. In case you’re not familiar with the context of what I’m talking about, here are the email excerpts from Dubner’s blog:
“The chain begins with Joseph Romm telling Caldeira that he had read SuperFreakonomics and ‘I want to trash them for this insanity and ignorance.’ Romm adds that ‘my blog is read by everyone in this area, including the media’ and tells Caldeira that ‘I’d like a quote like “˜The authors of SuperFreakonomics have utterly misrepresented my work,’ plus whatever else you want to say.'”
This may have been, as you put it, “refreshingly honest” for an advocacy blogger to say, but it would be highly unethical for a professonal journalist to say and then actually do.
Romm doesn’t seem to get this and apparently, neither do you.
[…] my cornflakes this morning I was mulling this comment by Deltoid’s Tim Lambert, which he left in response to my criticism yesterday of Joe Romm, […]
[…] academics in the past, and he’s just recently done so again by allegedly planting quotes. Roger Pielke Jr. has the scoop, and Keith Kloor follows suit, and Brad DeLong is all crazy up in the house. Fascinating reading, […]
Just thought I would make the obvious point which nobody seems to notice: Romm is not a journalist. What he did was low, but entirely consistent with someone who’s job is to trash anybody who advocates for a position that is opposed to that of his ideologically oriented employer – a political think tank (not a news reporting agency).
Eric Pooley seems to think Romm did OK. L+D, not so much. Of course Eric probably lacks Keith’s extensive j-school experience.
Actually, that’s what Romm thinks, because you link to Romm’s post. Here’s the Pooley piece.
Can you point to anywhere in there where he says its okay to feed a scientist a quote so you can trash somebody in a blog post?
Remember, my post isn’t about the content of his criticism of Freakonomics. I have a very specific criticism of the way Romm treats journalism as a blood sport. That’s not engaged by Pooley in his story. Nice try, though.
So, KK, do you agree that L&D wrote in their book the exact opposite of what Dr. Caldiera actually believes and publicly espouses? Do you agree that Romm’s presentation of Dr. Caldiera’s views more accurately represents Dr. C’s beliefs and work?
So in light of this, you make a big stink about Joe Romm’s journalistic ethics… who cares about the actual facts of the case, eh?
Given Caldeira’s interview with Yale360, I do believe you are now called no leg Kloor.
[…] reason for Romm’s 2700-word attack seems to stem from this critical post I wrote on him several weeks ago. So I’ll mostly address his grievances related to that. […]