NY Times guidelines put avoiding embarrassment ahead of good journalism

The New York Times integrity guidelines encourage reporters to avoid inaccurate quotations. Fair enough.

But why avoid inaccurate quotations? Not because they are bad journalism. Rather because, as the guidelines explain, the Times might get caught. And getting caught would erode reader trust.

Read for yourself:

Unless the writer has detailed notes or a recording, it is usually wise to paraphrase long comments, since they may turn up worded differently on television or in other publications. "Approximate" quotations can undermine readers’ trust in The Times.

Seems that if there is no chance of the correct quotation showing up elsewhere, a reporter should feel free to risk using an incorrect quotation.

Perhaps we should re-examine the Jayson Blair case. Was he just following his interpretation of company policy?

The Times has not asked for my input, but it seems to me the guideline would be ethically sounder if it read,

Unless the writer has detailed notes or a recording, it is usually wise to paraphrase long comments, since it is unethical to publish an inaccurate or "approximate" quotation.

Update: I sent Daniel Okrent (public editor of the Times) a copy of and link to this post (preceded by a note asking about his baseball writing--apparently he's the guy who invented rotisserie baseball). Here is his reply:

Yes, I used to write about baseball. Now, writing about The Times, I find that some observers tend to be a bit too literal. I think that, on its own, the section you quote suggests what you say it does. But I think the way the paragraph begins is essential to the policy: "Readers should be able to assume that every word between quotation marks is what the speaker or writer said." That's about as direct as it gets, especially in a statement about integrity; that to do otherwise is unethical is implicit.

Yours,

Daniel Okrent
Public Editor
N.B. All opinions expressed here, unless otherwise attributed, are solely my own

I appreciate Mr. Okrent's reply, but my criticism stands.