This week’s topic in lecture is called “Writing about talking: How to handle quotations.” I read the articles for lecture and actually found them very interesting.
This topic is about using quotations and when to change what someone says and when to quote them exactly how they said it. Personally, I do not think that a quotation should ever be changed. I think that a person should always be quoted exactly how they originally said it; otherwise you are not reporting the truth and what exactly happened. I think that if the original wording is so bad and would not be understood then it should be paraphrased.
I think that it really upsets people, both the speaker and the average reader when a journalist changes what was said.
I think that the way someone talks is a good example of the kind of person they are. I mean I do not think it is good to make someone look bad or stupid but if that is how they speak then that is how they should be quoted.
One of the articles talked about a man who interviewed a Parkinson’s patient. He said the man stumbled over his words. So the reporter asked the man if he wanted him to edit out the stuttering or they didn’t have to do the interview. The reporter said he ended up editing out the stuttering. He said his reasoning was that the story had nothing to do with Parkinson’s so it didn’t need to be in the story. I actually disagree. I think the fact this man has Parkinson’s and is still able to do everything he does is newsworthy. Maybe though the quotes were hard to read if the stumbling was in the quotes and that is why he took it out. However, I think the reporter could have paraphrased what the man said. Or if he really wanted to put it in quotes then he should make sure that he says that there was originally stuttering and stumbling in the interview. I think that if you do not say that he has Parkinson’s then the whole story is not being told.
(this was the website about the Parkinson's patient: http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4212)
Finally, I think that reporters really should try to quote the person exactly as they said it. While there might be some exceptions and very rarely, I think it is important ethically to say it exactly. I think that it is part of the reporter’s job to quote someone correctly and if they cannot make the story make sense without changing someone’s words then they are not a good writer and just being lazy. I think that it is ethically important to quote someone the way they said it. Otherwise just paraphrase it. I think that when the line gets hazy and is not definite, then that is where trouble may arise.
This is another one of those tricky issues journalists face. I agree with you that quotes should be left as is. However, sometimes this is tricky because sentences won't make sense, words will be missing, etc. and all you want to do as a reporter is make it sound better. I think though that not editing quotes is more genuine and honest. Often times, it can give the reader a better understanding of the person talking. In my opinion, tt gives more of a personal connection between the speaker and the reader.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. I think quotes should vary rarely, if ever, be changed. For me the biggest problem is drawing a line between when it is and is not appropriate. How does someone know if they are correcting someone's grammar or misrepresenting them? I don't think we should make these distinctions. Quotes should be exactly what the person said and everything else should be paraphrased.
ReplyDeleteI think that quotes should never be tampered with. If you cannot use a quote exactly as is or if you have the urge to "tweek" it slightly for whatever reason, I think the best solution is just to paraphrase the quote. This way you are not misquoting someone, but you are still writing what you wanted in your article, and it is on your terms.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the above comments. I don't agree with quoting people verbatim unless it's necessary for the story. So many individuals say "umm" and "uhh" in their speech that it would look horrible to write it exactly as its seen. Obviously, if they speak without those words, then I would never change it. But I think its ethically fine to make small changes. In journalism law, if I recall correctly, you learn that old court cases ruled some news writers weren't wrong in making small changes to people's quotes, so long as the meaning wasn't distorted in any way.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I agree. I'd say that quotes are definitely best left not being tampered with. I would say if a quote itself is unusable because of something like stuttering or repetitive use of things like "uh" or "um," that it should be paraphrased. Paraphrasing is just as valid as quotations, and anyway quotations should only really be used if they make the story sound better.
ReplyDeleteI see both sides of this argument but I agree more with Cody's comment. I normally tape record my interviews and after I sit down to transcribe them, half of what I wrote is simply "uhhs," "umms," and "you know's." If I included all of that in a story, I would waste space and end up frustrating the readers because they would have to sift through the awkward words to get to the real meaning behind the quote. Obviously, it's not okay to take pieces from quotes and put them together, but I think it's perfectly fine to filter out the "uhhs" and "ummms."
ReplyDelete