[jsmthrowaway]

Different issue, but related. Low impact stories are often rushed and not rigorously written. Sloppy versus actual malice, and I use that very specific legal term intentionally; reading about that and Sullivan will better illustrate the distinction I'm making between the two than I ever could.

Playing hardball with sources as that commenter describes is high stakes stuff. Sloppy stories are sloppy stories because they don't get detailed attention. Related, but different.

[firebones]

I agree with your bigger point, but it seems like what's at play here is the asymmetry. Low-impact to WSJ/NYT could potentially be very high-impact (positively or negatively) to the subject of the quote.

I can imagine a lot of scenarios where people feel burned.

Let's say a journalist is doing a piece on topical topic X. They get a bunch of mundane talking points from the usual sources in favor of X. Then they interview a more nuanced founder who is generally in favor of X, but offers a choice quote offering caution. When the story is constructed, the narrative sets up how X is this big trend, but the outspoken-yet-balanced founder--who happens to have a quote or two on the anti-X side of the spectrum--suddenly is found to be the opposition (despite being in the business of promoting X).

It's easy to see how the journalist feels like they got a good quote (founder of X-related company breaks news by not parroting blub-founders!), while the founder feels betrayed (95% of my discussion was blub in favor of X, and you chose my nuanced 5% to paint me as outside the mainstream!)

So from the WSJ/NYT point of view--jeez, here's another obligatory story on tech X, but at least one person gave us an edgy quote. And from the nuanced founder point of view--damn, those slimy journos took me out of context and painted me outside the X herd.