We, as journalists, learn to never give prior review. That is, sources are not able to read the article before its publication. But, with the emergence of the internet and people’s general concern for their so-called privacy, do we need to revisit the values and realistic nature of restricting prior review and prohibiting quote approval?

I understand the concerns that arise with the Google-ability of an article — people want to have control over what is being written in relation to their name, especially when it is being published in the public sphere. But, we do not live in an age where it is possible to remain anonymous on the Internet. Whether it is tight privacy settings on your Facebook account or your insistence to keep your phone number unlisted, somehow, aggregate sites get a hold of your information.

I did a quick Google search on myself. Apparently my profile is listed on a networking site, MyLife, which aggregates information from social media sites.

Members need not apply, as the site describes in its frequently asked questions, “the information in these listings comes from a variety of records in the public domain and is already accessible to anyone who may be trying to reconnect with you.”

While I may not agree with MyLife’s aggregation of publicly accessible information on the web, I understand that privacy is a thing of the past. The world operates on the internet, whether you are tagging those photos of yourself in a friend’s Facebook album or not.

What is scary about the internet is the irreversibility of publication. Once published, there will always be records of the publication — in the form of print screenshots or metadata coding.

It is because of this irreversibility and the rapid transferability of information that causes some journalists to rethink the idea of prohibiting prior review. Columnist Jay Mathews for the Washington Post is referred to as the father of readback journalism in an American Journalism Review (AJR) article. Mathews often reads his articles to his primary sources as a way to check the accuracy of his reporting before publication.

Traditionally, newspapers allotted teams of fact checkers to comb through each article before publication and check every fact for accuracy.

Although, newspaper companies like Time magazine and Newsweek have since adopted a “reporter-researcher role and rely on an ‘author-checked’ system,” describes Craig Silverman in The Poynter. “Pure fact checking was abandoned and fact-checkers displaced in favor of hybrid multitaskers who could check parts of stories while also reporting, and occasionally writing.”

With the reliance on reporters to be their own fact checkers, more journalists are turning to readback practices, like Mathews. In fact, according to the referenced AJR article, the University of Missouri’s student and faculty publication, the Missourian conducts an “Accuracy Check, and every reporter at the 5,000-circulation, six-day-a-week teaching newspaper is required to check edited copy with the original sources.”

The idea of reading back articles to sources for review before publication seems to be asking for trouble, especially when publishing on sensitive or controversial issues. Sure, the idea is to get the facts right, but opening the door to allow sources to have a first glimpse at the article before publication may be troublesome for journalists and newspaper companies alike. What happens when the source does not agree with the tone or message within the article? Can they influence the writer to change it before publication?

Some people argue that allowing quote approval should be allowed, given that not everyone is trained on how to talk to a reporter. Subjects become comfortable in the interview and sometimes say things that perhaps should not have been said on the record. But, does this responsibility fall on the journalist?

Generally speaking, journalists are not on a hunt to catch their sources saying things in an interview that may be interpreted as damaging or embarrassing. The goal of journalism is to provide objective and accurate news through fair and honest reporting.

Honest news gathering requires that journalists report on interviews based on their original content, not just what was approved by the source prior to publication. Yes, people have a right to be concerned with what is published in association with their name, but that is why the interview is conducted. Interviews should be thought of as a mutual agreement between journalist and source; what is said during the interview is fair game for publication, and the journalist agrees to use the words with context, and not distort or alter the meaning.