Why was I not quoted in a news article?

It’s natural to feel disappointed when your quotes aren’t included in a story you contributed to. From an academic perspective, Stephen Fried, investigative journalist and director of the narrative medicine journalism workshop at Columbia University, explains: “I think most people who are interviewed for a story but not included are upset to some degree, for obvious reasons: feeling the reporter didn’t find them interesting enough, or that the reporter wasted their time, or, worse, that the reporter felt their point of view was somehow lacking and didn’t feel the need to include it.”

Dale Maharidge, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and professor emeritus at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, understands this all too well. “I get why some people are upset,” he says. “They spend a lot of time with you, share their lives/work/interests. I’ve been on the receiving end of this with writers and documentary film makers...my interview sometimes does not make their final cut. I get it, but ‘civilians’ may not. When one sits down to write and you have perhaps dozens of interviews, everyone cannot be in the story.”

The surprise and frustration often stem from a broader misunderstanding of journalism. Many assume that being interviewed automatically guarantees a published quote, but the reality is more nuanced. “Neither students nor the general public appreciate how many interviews should go into a solid story, and how much of what is learned in the interviews doesn’t need to be quoted because it often isn’t the most efficient way to communicate an idea,” says Fried.

When a pitch is discussed in a newsroom and is given the go-ahead, the first step is research. This research involves reading academic papers or relevant news articles but it leads up to conversations and interviews. Journalists then speak to experts, industry insiders or people with first-hand knowledge of the matter to get a better understanding of the issue. In some cases, they also reach out to competitors to understand the issue from all sides and uncover underreported angles. 

Not everything—and everyone—makes it to the story, though. After all, quotes aren’t just fillers; they must add depth and value to the story.

“Quoting is one of the least talked about aspects of journalism,” says Maharidge. “I told my students that most journalists don’t like to talk about how they pick quotes. I told students to think of it as translating another language. The quote must have a fealty to the story. In other words, it better be good. I always told students to listen for zesty quotes.”

While some quotes are used to verify facts, others help add context. The idea is to empower a reader with information they may not find elsewhere.  

Speaking about the selection of quotes for a story, Maharidge says, “If the story is controversial, what quote would the subject most like to see in the story? That is the quote I will pick, especially if it contradicts my world view. That is the point of good journalism...to go into the grey areas. Sometimes this kind of quote is damning—the speaker will say “he got me right!” And it’s the kind of quote that sinks them in the eyes of many readers.” 

Explaining the editorial side of these decisions, Hiral Goyal, a writer at The Morning Context, says, “For any story we write, the idea is to include insights from people who have a very rich and deep understanding of the subject matter at hand. If the person we are quoting has a surface-level knowledge about the subject, our readers will not find a lot of value in what we are saying. At the same time, we also want to present a balanced perspective to our readers. This means including voices that are contrary to the angle of our story.” 

Here, it is important to understand the difference between various interviews done by journalists. 

Investigative reporting may prioritize verification and corroboration, while feature stories focus on compelling narratives and quotes from ground reporting. Each type has its own standards for which quotes make the cut. Understanding these distinctions can help interviewees manage expectations and recognize why their input might be included in some stories but not others.

Even when interviewees are highly knowledgeable, the context of the story may necessitate omitting their quotes. “This is never an easy decision for the writer because we try everything in our power to include quotes from the people we have spoken to,” says Goyal. She recalls one such instance: “One time I had to exclude a person's quotes from my story because the data and the related insight they shared were quite old. In another case, I had to prioritize inputs from someone who had first-hand experience of the particular business I was looking at as compared to someone who had an outsider's perspective.”

Additionally, a journalist has to keep the story’s structure and word count in mind, be it print or online. This is also why reporters need to be selective with quotes.

Like most other aspects of journalism, quoting people for a story has also evolved over time. In today’s age of social media, the idea of “quoting” someone has taken on a new dimension, shaped by posts, shares and reposts. “Originally, quotes came from in-person or phone interviews or prepared statements. Now, many come from social media posts and emails, somewhere between spoken quotes and statements, often used to back up facts,” says Fried. 

However, he adds, “I think soon the practice of printing quotes from people like [US President Donald] Trump just for hits—even when journalists know they’re false—will end. Right now, journalism is in a strange phase, sometimes selling nothing but fear itself—which often comes in the form of quotes.”

Now comes the tricky part. A rather common question that arises for journalists is, how to tell a person that their quote will not be included in the story? Should a reporter inform them in advance or wait for them to discover it once the story is published?

Ideally, opting for transparency should be considered. If an interviewee has spent considerable time talking on the subject and yet for some reason their quote is not included, it’s good practice to inform them—maybe the story’s direction shifted or there were word count limitations. This also shows that the journalist respects their time and effort. After all, building and maintaining relationships with sources is also vital for journalists. 

At the end of the day, though, being interviewed by a journalist is not a ticket to having your words published. As I explained with various insights above, the process is quite nuanced. Journalists need to report an accurate story, not a mere collection of voices. But it is also important to recognize that not being quoted doesn’t mean your inputs weren’t valuable. Instead, you need to understand that the essence of journalism lies in the story’s truth and clarity.

If you feel wronged or excluded in such a situation, it’s better to see the process for what it is: a balancing act where perspectives and facts are presented with great care to tell stories that matter.