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

[imjustagirl2]

I don't change quotes. That's what the guy said. When I say "so and so said" he darn well better have said what I'm attributing to him.

 

[The Big Ragu]

The readers did give a ship. To the point that there were letters to the editor published on multiple days and the Ombudsman got involved. It doesn't make Bryant a bad reporter, it makes him a bad journalist on multiple levels.
1. if you don't know the definition of "QUOTE", you're an idiot not a journalist.
2. if you don't know the style book of your newspaper when you're employed by The Washington Post, you're a fool.
3. if you lie and say you didn't know the policy, when you obviously did, you're a piece of ship liar.
4. if you are intentionally covering for the object of your story by cleaning up their grammar , you are not a reporter, but an advocate or a PR hack.

You know, man, if you want to call Howard Bryant a piece of ship liar on an anonymous message board that is between you and him--although of course, you aren't actually facing him when you do it, so it is between him and some guy on an anonymous message board.

And if you really want to be high and mighty about a quote is a quote, then fine. Do your job that way. I told you how many sports writers ACTUALLY do their job. There is a reason for it. They have to face these guys and rely on them year round. You are not changing the meaning, you are just cleaning up grammar and syntax. The reader still knows what the guy said, and by not making him sound like an idiot, he's there for you the next day and the day after that and the day after that. If you are willing to potentially sacrifice talking to the star running back all season because "a quote is a quote," even if cleaning up some grammar doesn't change the meaning, all the power to you. Obviously lots of people on this thread agree with you. They just express it more reasonably. I don't envy them if it ever bites them in the ash -- and even if it doesn't 9 times out of ten, it will eventually.

Where I do take issue is with your "PR hack" nonsense. Can you make a statement that isn't so absolutist? Given the nature of about 70 percent of your posts on this board, I know that your problem is that Bryant didn't let the ebonics-speaking athlete sound like an ebonics-speaking athlete in print. That is ALWAYS your agenda on here -- you are either baiting blacks or muslims or making some other such veiled post. And you disguise it in the guise of something else when you can. Such as this.

The problem here, is that the point of those stories in the sports section are not to point out that Clinton Portis doesn't speak the Queen's English. I know that is what YOU want the point to be--anyone can hit the search button on here to see your agenda when it comes to blacks, muslims and others different than you. The actual point is to inform Redskins fans about Redskins-related news. So there is absolutely nothing wrong with cleaning up a quote from Portis, because there is nothing lost. The meaning wasn't changed. And it served the story, which wasn't a story about a black athlete who doesn't express himself well enough for your tastes, but was really just a story about the Redskins and what is going on with their running back. Cleaning up the quote didn't change any of that. Nothing lost and probably a lot gained. Pr hack? How forking insulting. Howard Bryant wasn't drafting press releases from Clinton Portis. He wasn't adding or changing meaning of his words. He cleaned up a quote. Jeez. Gain some perspective. Or at least be honest about the fact that you just wanted the black guy to come off poorly in print so you can get your jollies about it.

 

[Nathan Scott Phillips]

I would be inclined to say it's OK for a high school or college player or non-native speaker who just got here. But Portis and Gibbs have both been around long enough to know they are being quoted and could easily clean up their grammar if they cared. Neither would be embarrashed to be quoted like that.

 

[spnited]

And had Wise not used the same quote as Bryant, no one would know that Bryant cleaned up the quote and this would not be an issue ... just like it's not an issue 99% of the time when what we read everyday is cleaned up quotes.
In fact, if the Ombud had not made it an issue, 99% of the Post readers wouldn't know or care.

 

[Pilot]

It's fairly spineless, but I'm more likely to correct some grammar when it's a one-on-one than when it's a press conference or a big gang bang interview.

 

[imjustagirl2]

What if the readers heard the same quote on TV, and KNOW that's not what he said?

Or, what if you've been cleaning up quotes for a couple years. What happens when the viewers see the guy on TV and realize he can't speak the Queen's English if you gave him something to read? Now, they doubt other things from you, because you've presented something that didn't happen (the player saying 'anyone' instead of 'no one') to them as fact.

 

[spnited]

What if the readers heard the same quote on TV, and KNOW that's not what he said?

Or, what if you've been cleaning up quotes for a couple years. What happens when the viewers see the guy on TV and realize he can't speak the Queen's English if you gave him something to read? Now, they doubt other things from you, because you've presented something that didn't happen (the player saying 'anyone' instead of 'no one') to them as fact.

Do you honestly think a guy picks up the paper in the moring and sees the word "anyone" in a quote and says to himself "Hey, I saw that clip on ESPN last night and he said 'no one'." darn, that writer's got no credibility."

Not happening. Way overstating the case.

 

[imjustagirl2]

Not directly. But I think people who follow the Redskins know how Clinton Portis talks. And I could read Bryant's quote and know it wasn't what Portis said.

It's not that hard, since these are the fans of the teams reading what we write.

 

[spnited]

Don't buy it. Fans read right through that stuff.

 

[Twoback]

I don't change quotes. That's what the guy said. When I say "so and so said" he darn well better have said what I'm attributing to him.

I was thinking more about this.
There is no way that those of you who claim you don't clean up quotes are telling the truth.
There's no way that you're dropping in every "uh" and "you know" and "like" into your quotes. No freaking way.
You can feel free to, uh, like, quote me on that, you know?

 

[dooley_womack1]

There's a certain Mike Royko column that illustrates what you're saying very well, twoback. Anyhoo, I can see changing an "'em" to "them". But not a "nobody" to "anybody"

 

[imjustagirl2]

Actually, the people I talk to don't do the "ums" and "you knows" that much. And when they do, if it's overpowering, I use ellipses.

But I don't change a "I don't got any idea" to "I do not have any idea."