We are firmly against “quote approval” and do not practice such a policy. When I refer to “quote review,” that is a non-binding courtesy we provide to sources in limited circumstances. If they provided factual information that they later found to be wrong (eg “I said five but I meant six”), that is the only instance in which we would consider replacing a quote. If there’s a question of whether the quote was transcribed accurately, that would be addressed then as well. This happens entirely at the discretion of the editors.
To be clear, if a source said it, a source said it. We don’t do revisionist interviewing.
Showing the supposed pros how it’s done.