Journalism and Quote Farm usage
July 26, 2024 6:24 AM Subscribe
I read this comment * on BlueSky in a thread about NY Times poll voter quote from a low-key infamous disreputable source explaining that according to an insider that bad sources often come from "quote farm agencies" and I am wondering if anyone could provide some insights into this practice.
When I search using the now degraded Google Search all I get is endless Farmers Insurance links.
*
When I search using the now degraded Google Search all I get is endless Farmers Insurance links.
*
Asked a dear friend of several decades, who is a former NYT reporter, how this could happen. Reply: "things like this happen when media uses quote farm agencies or press releases from those groups. fuck."
Me: "How often does the New York Times do this, I wonder."
Former journalist here. What I think the Bluesky comment might mean by "quote farm agencies" is the practice by PR agencies and lobbyists volunteering their sources for stories via email. Any time a story would enter the news cycle, we'd quickly receive emails promoting sources to interview or quote in stories.
When I worked at a large publication, it wasn't unusual to receive 250+ pitches daily. I understand it from the lobbyist/PR perspective completely - spray overworked journalists with a firehose of sources and eventually they'll use one for a story when they can't find anyone else.
posted by allthethings at 8:05 AM on July 26 [4 favorites]
When I worked at a large publication, it wasn't unusual to receive 250+ pitches daily. I understand it from the lobbyist/PR perspective completely - spray overworked journalists with a firehose of sources and eventually they'll use one for a story when they can't find anyone else.
posted by allthethings at 8:05 AM on July 26 [4 favorites]
Former flack and former journalist here. Organizations will often either hire a PR agency that will provide quotes directly to the press or will they will use sources from advocacy organizations.
For example, a few years ago DC was looking at passing a new law to increase the tipped minimum wage for servers. Nearly all coverage of “servers” who were voicing opposition to this new law turned out to be folks hired by a pro-business advocacy group (can’t remember now if it was the Restaurant Association or Chamber of Commerce).
If you see a quote from a “man in the street” in the news you can try searching for that person’s name across news sources. If the same person is quoted over and over across different news outlets that’s a pretty good sign that either a PR firm or an advocacy group organized the interviews and these are actually vetted talking points, not an off the cuff comment from a random member of the public.
posted by forkisbetter at 8:19 AM on July 26 [10 favorites]
For example, a few years ago DC was looking at passing a new law to increase the tipped minimum wage for servers. Nearly all coverage of “servers” who were voicing opposition to this new law turned out to be folks hired by a pro-business advocacy group (can’t remember now if it was the Restaurant Association or Chamber of Commerce).
If you see a quote from a “man in the street” in the news you can try searching for that person’s name across news sources. If the same person is quoted over and over across different news outlets that’s a pretty good sign that either a PR firm or an advocacy group organized the interviews and these are actually vetted talking points, not an off the cuff comment from a random member of the public.
posted by forkisbetter at 8:19 AM on July 26 [10 favorites]
A cynical answer is that the media has a group of people they pick from for the majority of 'man on the street' type quotes.
Here's a hilarious recent example:
Democrat angry about Biden's policies infamous for planting severed finger in Wendy's chili.
posted by The_Vegetables at 10:32 AM on July 26 [4 favorites]
Here's a hilarious recent example:
Democrat angry about Biden's policies infamous for planting severed finger in Wendy's chili.
posted by The_Vegetables at 10:32 AM on July 26 [4 favorites]
the media has a group of people they pick from...
As a current journalist I can tell you have neither the means nor inclination to conspire on things like this! Honestly, as far as I can tell no one knows what the other outlets are doing. It's as much as we can do to figure out what our immediate colleagues and editors are up to.
That disconnect makes it very easy for groups like the above-mentioned PR firms to blast multiple outlets with "EXECUTIVE COMMENT ON HARRIS NOMINATION?" emails. These are almost all watery, content-free quotes by the executive vice president of something at some medium size company who's just trying to get their name out there. If you quote them they can say, "as seen in/quoted by [outlet]..."
But there's a general policy in journalism is that you don't say something that you can get someone else to say. So if a new policy seems shady, you don't as a journalist say "this is shady" because you're generally supposed to be documenting, not speculating. But sometimes one of the dozen quotes that came in more or less expresses what you were thinking, so you drop it in: "Seems kind of shady," said SomeCo EVP Billy Boomer.
Sometimes though, you fail to check whether Billy is a total non-entity, or a crank, or that his company is implicated in a fraud suit. Or multiple other outlets run the same quote because they were thinking the same thing.
It happens because the news is so fast-paced. I almost never use these folks, but sometimes they can be useful. They occasionally point out context I forget about, or come from an angle I didn't consider. I still am unlikely to quote them, but it can contribute in paraphrase or context.
Could also be a HARO-type thing, but in my experience those are generally better vetted. I suspect the inbox peanut gallery is the more common suspect.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 8:50 PM on July 26 [2 favorites]
As a current journalist I can tell you have neither the means nor inclination to conspire on things like this! Honestly, as far as I can tell no one knows what the other outlets are doing. It's as much as we can do to figure out what our immediate colleagues and editors are up to.
That disconnect makes it very easy for groups like the above-mentioned PR firms to blast multiple outlets with "EXECUTIVE COMMENT ON HARRIS NOMINATION?" emails. These are almost all watery, content-free quotes by the executive vice president of something at some medium size company who's just trying to get their name out there. If you quote them they can say, "as seen in/quoted by [outlet]..."
But there's a general policy in journalism is that you don't say something that you can get someone else to say. So if a new policy seems shady, you don't as a journalist say "this is shady" because you're generally supposed to be documenting, not speculating. But sometimes one of the dozen quotes that came in more or less expresses what you were thinking, so you drop it in: "Seems kind of shady," said SomeCo EVP Billy Boomer.
Sometimes though, you fail to check whether Billy is a total non-entity, or a crank, or that his company is implicated in a fraud suit. Or multiple other outlets run the same quote because they were thinking the same thing.
It happens because the news is so fast-paced. I almost never use these folks, but sometimes they can be useful. They occasionally point out context I forget about, or come from an angle I didn't consider. I still am unlikely to quote them, but it can contribute in paraphrase or context.
Could also be a HARO-type thing, but in my experience those are generally better vetted. I suspect the inbox peanut gallery is the more common suspect.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 8:50 PM on July 26 [2 favorites]
« Older What am I missing about The Bridge of San Luis Rey... | Eggplant dishes for the freezer Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Shankman's service, HARO, was sold to Cision, which has rebranded it. I'm not sure if it works the way it used to. I do know that there are several "find a source" services in the big-company PR industry, but they almost always are terrible and turn into blasts of poorly focused PR rather than careful source cultivation.
posted by Mo Nickels at 7:07 AM on July 26 [8 favorites]