A reader, Paolo Singer of Oxford University, wrote to ask about the practice of quoting individuals whose words actually came not from their own lips but from a statement prepared by a public relations firm. He wrote, in part:
I am concerned by the practice, reflected in the recent series of articles on Cecil the Lion, of quoting individuals, without caveat, when it is known that a PR firm has ghost written their statement.
He gave an example from a Times story in which the Minnesota dentist, Dr. Walter Palmer, is quoted as follows, “I had no idea that the lion I took was a known, local favorite, was collared and part of a study, until the end of the hunt. I relied on the expertise of my local professional guides to ensure a legal hunt.”
The reader said he would like to be able to distinguish between “what people say” with “sayings people buy.” And he noted that The Associated Press, in writing about this same subject, indicated that a statement came from a public relations firm.
“Would it not make sense for The Times to follow this standard, too?” he asked.
It’s an interesting question in an era in which the subjects of news stories try, in all sorts of ways, to control the message. Related questions have come up here in discussions of quote approval and sources’ efforts to restrict reporting on the first day of a story. I asked The Times’s standards editor, Philip B. Corbett, to respond. He wrote:
In this case, our stories did specify that Dr. Palmer’s remarks came “in a statement,” which I think most readers would understand to mean a formal, written response as opposed to extemporaneous comments in an interview. One story specifically described the involvement of a public-relations firm.
More broadly, we don’t have a hard and fast rule, but I agree that we should provide readers whatever information or context might help them best understand someone’s remarks. Often that means pointing out if quotes came in a written statement, in an email exchange, in remarks to a group of reporters, or whatever. Sometimes it also makes sense to point out if a statement is released by a P.R. firm or a lawyer — it may give the reader a better sense of the context.
(Of course, the involvement of a P.R. firm or a spokesperson is routine in many corporate and political contexts, so it’s not always necessary to mention it. In many situations, it may also be impossible to know what words, if any, came directly from the principal and what came from the handlers.)
In this occasional series of Perfectly Reasonable Questions, I ask a Times editor to respond to a reader’s question, and I present the question and answer, usually without comment. Feel free to submit questions to public@nytimes.com. (As always, I reserve the right to determine what is perfectly reasonable.)