I have personal experience with transcription software (e.g. Otter.ai), and it's still not good enough. Even if you get 95% accuracy, which isn't a given if the audio is recorded outside with background noise, that's still 5 in 100 words for correction, more if there are technical terms.
So you need someone to review it and clean it for accuracy. It's not trivially easy at all to provide all the source materials for every interview because it's time consuming to clean and verify. For especially sensitive investigative reporting that isn't breaking news, and where there's more time to report, news outlets (e.g. CBC News) already publish recordings and full email transcripts.
I would also argue that it's the norm for journalists from respectable outlets (usually the ones with paid subscriptions) to put quotes in proper context. It's an ethical principle of the field. When they don't, the current system works when the interviewee, readership, and press watchdogs call out the unethical reporting.
The purpose is to definitively source the citation, as a protection against journalists Making Shit Up and as a courtesy to others wishing to independently verify the accuracy and context.
If there's an observed inaccuracy of the transcription, then note that fact.
So you need someone to review it and clean it for accuracy. It's not trivially easy at all to provide all the source materials for every interview because it's time consuming to clean and verify. For especially sensitive investigative reporting that isn't breaking news, and where there's more time to report, news outlets (e.g. CBC News) already publish recordings and full email transcripts.
I would also argue that it's the norm for journalists from respectable outlets (usually the ones with paid subscriptions) to put quotes in proper context. It's an ethical principle of the field. When they don't, the current system works when the interviewee, readership, and press watchdogs call out the unethical reporting.