Cleaning up the Quote: Wash Post Ombudsman faults ex-Reporter Howard Bryant

Good topic.

People on here are saying, a quote is a quote. But it's not that simple. Athletes tend to repeat themselves. They use phrases like "you know what I'm sayin'?"

Example: "I just went to the basket hard, you know what I'm sayin? I just went to the basket hard, and -- you know what I'm sayin? -- the next thing I know I'm on the floor. It is what it is."

In that case, I see nothing wrong with shortening the quote to: "I just went to the basket hard, and the next thing I know I'm on the floor."

I think everyone else would do the same.

And what do you do with the coach who never completes a sentence? ... "The official told me that he took two ... But that doesn't make sense because Jason ... And somehow ... It doesn't make sense ... But if that's ... I cant really talk about it."

I would've left Portis' quote alone because that's the way he talks. It shows personality and it has kind of a rhythm to do it. It's a great quote.

However, I do think it is wrong to quote someone when you know the grammar/word choice will embarrass them when it shows up in print. (Unless what he said has news value.) I was talking to someone the other day who used used the wrong word -- actaully it wasnt even a word -- during an interview. He said it twice. I know what he meant. He was off by one one letter. So instead of quoting him using that word, or even paraphasing I just used the correct word. Is that wrong? I dont think so.

 

As I said before, if anyone thinks there is an easy answer to this, they're sadly mistaken... One coach I used to cover would ramble all over the place... He would start to answer a question, ramble about something that had nothing to do with anything and then come back and finish the answer. If I transcribed it it would be about 15 sentences long and every paper that covered him would use the first 1-2 sentences and the last 1-2 sentences with all of the rambling left out.

Well, the one time he said something controversial to the print guys, it was the same thing. Then the PR guy started telling all of the TV and radio people that the quote was taken "out of context" and that the coach spoke extensively on said subject, yet the print guys "decided" to leave out the majority of what was said...

 

You covered Tubby Smith?

 

As for the importance of tape recorders in journalism - so we can get these quotes "exactly right" -- keep in mind that Red Smith probably never used one. This is one of those no harm/no foul arguments, when you get right down to it.

 

From the 2007 AP Stylebook:

quotations in the news Never alter quotations even to correct minor grammatical errors or word usage. Casual minor tongue slips may be removed by using ellipses but even that should be done with extreme caution. If there is a question about a quote, either don’t use it or ask the speaker to clarify.
If a person is unavailable for comment, detail attempts to reach that person. (Smith was out of the country on business; Jones did not return phone messages left at the office.)
Do not use substandard spellings such as gonna or wanna in attempts to convey regional dialects or informal pronunciations, except to help a desired touch in a feature.
Follow basic writing style and use abbreviations where appropriate, as in No. 1 or St.
FULL vs. PARTIAL QUOTES: In general, avoid fragmentary quotes. If a speaker’s words are clear and concise, favor the full quote. If cumbersome language can be paraphrased fairly, use an indirect construction, reserving quotation marks for sensitive or controversial passages that must be identified specifically as coming from the speaker.
CONTEXT: Remember that you can misquote someone by giving a startling remark without its modifying passage or qualifiers. The manner of delivery sometimes is part of the context. Reporting a smile or a deprecatory gesture may be as important as conveying the words themselves.

 

Thank you, J_D.

 

I really do not see the difference ethically between changing "nobody" to "anybody" and changing "wanna" to "want to." You're still "cleaning up" someone's speech. And then, really: "except to help a desired touch in a feature." So it's OK to use "gonna" if it makes the story sound better? Art trumps "the rules"? I'm just sayin'.

That's the thing about arbitrary rules -- if you want to be a hardliner, you have to be a hardliner all the way. The best stylebook I've seen said in the preface that the stylebook should not be a substitute for common sense. Hopefully we have writers and editors who know the difference between a change that alters meaning and one that is benign. I think the change in question was pretty benign. We can disagree about whether it was a good idea, but it was hardly done for sinister reasons.

 

I was going to guess Rick Barnes.

 

I don't make grammatical fixes, but I do eliminate extraneous words.

"You know, I, I, I just, I just feel like I've outplayed my contract and, you know, and I just want something that's, uh, something that's fair."
Becomes ...
"I just feel like I've outplayed my contract and I just want something that's fair."

No, it's not exactly what he said. But I don't think that's always the point. Since the readers can't see or hear the guy, I think it's my job to convey the entire message, including the non-verbal one, as accurately as possible, which often means cleaning up a quote. Putting everything in there sometimes changes the tone of the message in a way that robs its accuracy.

In the Portis case, I think the quote was perfect in its verbatim state. It had more punch and seemed to better show who Portis is and how he felt. But I don't like blanket, never-change-so-much-as-a-comma-in-a-quote statements. It might make the story more technically accurate, but not more true.

 

I think it depends on the paper. If I turned it quotes that were grammatically all over the place, my desk would clean it up and since they weren't there and I don't want the context changed, I'd rather do it myself to make sure it's as close as possible...

 

i talked to a writer once that said that he stops cleaning up grammar after a player has reached his senior year of college (obviously, he's a college beat writer). in his case, i think that's fair. in many cases, drilling a freshman for misusing the language is dirty pool, especially in a world where grammar is used to separate the washed from the unwashed as it relates to intelligence. many of those kids didn't take a class worth a damn until they got to college (particularly those in the deep south).

the bigger problem is how people conflate ineffective grammar with a lack of intelligence, and that's at root of this problem.

the only reason to clean up the grammar is to protect someone from looking stupid. i know lots of morons that never leave a participle dangling. at the same time, my sister's got two books in stores and a faculty position at a reputable institution, but spelling isn't her strong suit. she's still plenty smart, and there's a chance someone that drops the occasional double negatives fairly bright, also.

if folks could see through malapropisms to use a more reliable measure of intelligence, we wouldn't have this problem.

EDIT: whoops, almost set myself up for a bad one with an error neither howard bryant nor mr. clean could tidy up.

 

Bomani is right. When I was in college, I used to proofread papers for my roommate. Seemed like a smart guy. Got like a 30 on his ACT, graduated with two degrees, went to law school.

Motherfucker couldn't write his name. Not only was he completely barren of creativity, he was a terrible speller and had what seemed like only a general knowledge of English punctuation He was in that rare space in which he knew just enough to fuck everything up (I curse the person who introduced him to colons and semicolons). And I don't know if this is relevant or not, but he is the most unoriginal person I've ever met.

But man could he buzz through a linear regression.