How could compressed dialogue affect the accuracy of a New Journalism article?

In the context of the New Journalism movement, the use of compressed dialogue—the practice of condensing or rearranging conversations to enhance narrative flow—was a significant point of contention regarding journalistic integrity.1

Critics argued that compressing dialogue could negatively affect the accuracy of an article by blurring the line between factual reporting and fiction. Because New Journalism often employed literary techniques to create dramatic tension and vivid scenes, skeptics feared that reporters might prioritize narrative impact over strict adherence to the facts. By altering the timing or content of what was actually said, journalists risked undermining the credibility of their work and moving it away from the realm of journalism into fiction.12

Conversely, some practitioners defended these techniques, arguing that they allowed writers to capture the essential truth of a story and make it more readable without sacrificing its core accuracy. However, many other journalists adamantly opposed such practices, maintaining that any departure from verbatim dialogue discredited a story. Ultimately, proponents of factual verifiability, such as Lillian Ross and John Hersey, insisted that responsible journalists should never present dialogue unless their sources had actually uttered it.13