Is authorization for interviews still needed?

Anyone who thinks that today's culture of conversation lacks etiquette has clearly not experienced the 1950s. Back then, people would get into such heated arguments during interviews that, according to legend, the SPIEGEL magazine felt compelled to submit the transcripts to all participants for review. Although things may be more civil now, the resulting practice of authorization is still used today. The advantages are obvious: incorrect statements can be corrected, incomprehensible passages can be clarified and unnecessary material can be removed. In short, the authorization process serves as a mutual quality control.

Although the benefits seem so obvious, this practice hardly exists in any other democracy besides Germany. One reason for this could be that the process involves not only minimal corrections and clarifications, but also the subsequent addition or deletion of material. There is an incentive to make changes in one's own favor – sometimes so extensively that hardly any of the original text can be recognized.

Stern magazine is said to have conducted an interview with Sigmar Gabriel that was suddenly twice as long after it was authorized. In contrast, others no longer want to read what they said in the newspaper afterwards. In the most extreme case, the editorial team has no choice but to publish blackened passages or completely blank pages – as happened after interviews with Philipp Rösler or Olaf Scholz in the taz. But Oliver Kahn and Gabor Steingart also caused blank pages after they subsequently withdrew their approval.

It therefore comes as no surprise that some newspapers are critical of the authorization of interviews. After all, this is not the case with live formats, such as on television or radio. However, the fact that BILD, of all publications, is the first to announce that it will no longer submit interviews for approval before publication is not without a certain irony. It remains to be seen whether this will actually help to counter the popular impression that what is printed rarely corresponds to what has been said.

Perhaps it doesn't need the big guns at all. Instead of abolishing authorization and thus implicitly getting rid of mutual quality control, one could agree on the already applicable press code. It says unequivocally: the spoken word applies as long as what is said is correctly reproduced. A quick double check is better than long correction loops. Once established, it would save editorial teams a lot of hassle. And it would free up resources for those press relations managers, who could put them to better use elsewhere – for example, in proper preparation. In choosing the right medium and the right time. In good media training. Because if you are well prepared, you will keep your word. In the end, this creates real trust.