The Right to Review Before Publication

Some subjects request the chance to review their quotes before a piece is published, and different traditions within interviewing treat this request quite differently: some allow it freely, others resist it as a compromise to editorial independence and honest reporting. Traditions differ considerably here, and neither extreme is universally accepted across the whole craft.

A reasonable middle position allows review for accuracy, correcting a genuine misquote or factual error, while resisting requests to soften or withdraw an answer simply because the subject regrets having said it once they see it written down in full. Regret after the fact is not the same thing as an actual error worth correcting.

Whatever the policy, clarity about it before the interview begins avoids a difficult and awkward negotiation after the fact, when a subject's expectations and the interviewer's actual practice may turn out to have differed considerably. That early clarity avoids a difficult, sometimes damaging negotiation once the piece is nearly finished.