Several weeks ago, the Washington Post sports section carried two different versions of the same quote from an athlete. A columnist altered the quote to fix the athlete's grammar. The reporter, who taped the interview, quoted the athlete verbatim. Readers noticed the difference and wondered what was up. The newspaper's ombudsman, Deborah Howell, wrote a column noting the columnist had violated the paper's policy on direct quotations. Her second column explored the reaction from Post staffers and readers to the Post's quotation policy, which Howell explains says "those exact words should have been uttered in precisely that form." Staffers, who said there were gray areas, were divided. At least some readers were appalled that quotes had been changed. Bob Steele, an ethics scholar at the Poynter Institute, weighed in, too. He said quotes should accurately reflect the words used in an interview. Changing them increases the readers' distrust.
What do you think? Is it ever OK to change a direct quote? Why? An editor at the Post points out the columnist did not change the meaning of the athlete's words. He simply changed the grammar to save the athlete from potential embarrassment. The AP stylebook says quotation marks are used to surround "the exact words" of a speaker. What's your take?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I don't really understand the motive for wnating to change a quote. Reporting, I think, is showing the audience exactly what you found out. A sedicious, lacivious, or just plain dumb quote will only enhance the story because it probably what the reader will remember or read over again.
I can understand why the person felt the need to change the quote for grammar. I was the copy chief at The State News this past summer, and this issue came up a lot. Usually, we would consult the reporter and ask about the quote to get a second opinion. If something is really bad (this came up yesterday actually) then sometimes a change is necessary for clarity. The quote said something about how "these events have shapen our lives.." Obviously, the word is "shaped," but there was some discrepancy as to if it should be changed or not. In the end, they ended up changing it because it didn't severely alter the meaning of the quote. The point of my rambling is I think it's OK in some instances, such as the example above, to change it. If you're changing a word that reflects a dialect (like "ain't" or curse words) then it's unacceptable.
I agree that there are occasionally instances where it is justified to clean up the grammar in minor ways, especially if you’re talking to someone who isn’t a public figure. The point of an interview is not to make people look stupid; it’s to get the facts. Of course, there is an obligation to report as accurately as possible. I don’t think there can be a quick and easy standby for this problem. Whether or not the exact grammar someone used matters depends upon if it will affect the meaning or the way the public will respond to a quote. There are times when it won’t. Generally speaking though, I think someone in the public arena who is used to speaking to the press should be quoted in full, Bushisms and all.
Post a Comment