( CNN ) -- A New York Times front-page article Monday detailed a new phenomenon in news coverage of the presidential campaign : candidates insisting on `` quote approval , '' telling reporters what they can and can not use in some stories . And , stunningly , reporters agreeing to it . This , folks , is news . Any way you look at it , this is a jaw-dropping turn in journalism , and it raises a lot of questions . Among them : Can you trust the reporters and news organizations who do this ? Is it ever justified on the candidate 's side or on the reporter 's side ? Where is this leading us ? As someone who 's been covering presidential campaigns since the 1950s , I have no delusions about political reporting . Candidates bargaining access to get the kind of news coverage they want is nothing new . The thicket of attribution and disclosure deals is a deep maze reporters have been picking their way through even before my time . But this latest tactic by candidates revealed by the Times gives me , to say the least , great pause . It should give every citizen pause . Essentially , what the Times described was the rapid rise of `` quote approval '' -- a strategy deployed by campaigns requiring reporters to send quotations they intend to use to candidates ' press officers , to be sliced , diced , edited and drained of color or unwanted consequences , and reporters going along , fearing that if they do n't , they wo n't get access . A look at media coverage of Romney 's Bain pain . Here 's how it works : Let 's say a reporter is granted an interview with a senior strategist of the Obama or Romney campaign . A condition for the interview would be that before the reporter could send the story to the editor , he or she would have to agree to submit for approval every quote intended to be used to the campaign press staff . Let us mark well this Faustian bargain . It is for the benefit of the politicians , at the expense of readers , listeners and viewers . It is not in the public interest ; it is designed to further the candidates ' interests . Political operatives can not be blamed for wanting this . We , the press , should be held accountable for letting them have it . Thomas Jefferson said : `` The only security of all is in a free press . '' A free and truly independent press -- fiercely independent when necessary -- is the red beating heart of freedom and democracy . One of the most important roles of our journalists is to be watchdogs . Submitting to these new tactics puts us more in the category of lapdogs . For many years , it has been typical journalistic practice for high-ranking officials on the campaign or in the White House to demand that interviews be conducted `` on background '' -- meaning reporters agree to not use direct quotes or identify the person by name . Hence , conventions such as `` As one campaign official said ... '' This , in many cases , is defensible . Diane Sawyer 's `` Hot '' Newscast . But the practice described in the Times is something new and different . This is the officials or candidates regularly insisting that reporters essentially become an operative arm of the . administration or campaign they are covering . `` Quote approval '' nullifies , or at least seriously dilutes , reporters ' ability and duty to be honest brokers of information . When the quotes are sanitized , then delivered intact with full attribution , the public has no way of knowing what the concealed deal was . Please know that there is no joy in calling attention to these things . I respect and empathize with reporters and editors who must compete in today 's environment . And I know full well that when I 've been covering campaigns , which I still do , I 've made my mistakes and have been far from perfect . About all of us doing this line of work , I 'm often reminded of a sign in an old Wild West cow town saloon that said , `` Please do n't shoot the piano player , he 's doing the best he can . '' But we journalists can do better . We must . Media Blitz Batters Romney . Dean Baquet , the excellent managing editor for news at the Times , said in Monday 's story , referring to quote approval : `` We do n't like the practice . We encourage our reporters to push back . Unfortunately , this practice is becoming increasingly common , and maybe we have to push back harder . '' Yes . The Times , Washington Post , Wall Street Journal and a few other newspapers , along with the major networks , are among the few news outlets that have the leverage to push back -- soon and hard . It 's action worthy of us . And it 's important . It matters . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Dan Rather .
Reporters are agreeing to let candidates vet their quotes before they appear in stories . Dan Rather : Allowing candidates to edit their quotes makes reports fraudulent . By making this `` bargain '' for access , he says , reporters essentially become PR agents . Comment: