Editing quotes to reflect proper speech

[Liut]

Spent about four months free-lancing for a university recently. They make up quotes.

"We know how our coach talks," a staffer said.

I had dealt with that coach previously for a daily and know positively he doesn't talk as smoothly.

I refused to spy on an opponent's practice and report back details.

I can sleep at night, but I'm unemployed and can't find work.

 

[txsportsscribe]

You know, I've been in the business for 32 years now, and if all the people who come on here to say you never clean up a quote and always run it exactly word for word or paraphrase it, no exceptions, are the norm in the business, then I've never worked with any of them. And I'm talking some pretty big newspapers -- including, at one time, one of the three biggest.

The quote in this case is fine. though. But people here, AP -- whose stated style is to not clean up quotes -- if I might say this with the greatest affection and respect: You're all full of shirt. EVERYBODY in this business routinely cleans up little problems in quotes. The person who has never, not once, ever cleaned up even a smidgen of grammar in a quote, please introduce yourself -- but rest assured, I won't believe you for a second.

what he said (except for working the big papers )

 

[CentralIllinoisan]

You know, I've been in the business for 32 years now, and if all the people who come on here to say you never clean up a quote and always run it exactly word for word or paraphrase it, no exceptions, are the norm in the business, then I've never worked with any of them. And I'm talking some pretty big newspapers -- including, at one time, one of the three biggest.

The quote in this case is fine. though. But people here, AP -- whose stated style is to not clean up quotes -- if I might say this with the greatest affection and respect: You're all full of shirt. EVERYBODY in this business routinely cleans up little problems in quotes. The person who has never, not once, ever cleaned up even a smidgen of grammar in a quote, please introduce yourself -- but rest assured, I won't believe you for a second.

 

[Bubbler]

You know, I've been in the business for 32 years now, and if all the people who come on here to say you never clean up a quote and always run it exactly word for word or paraphrase it, no exceptions, are the norm in the business, then I've never worked with any of them. And I'm talking some pretty big newspapers -- including, at one time, one of the three biggest.

The quote in this case is fine. though. But people here, AP -- whose stated style is to not clean up quotes -- if I might say this with the greatest affection and respect: You're all full of shirt. EVERYBODY in this business routinely cleans up little problems in quotes. The person who has never, not once, ever cleaned up even a smidgen of grammar in a quote, please introduce yourself -- but rest assured, I won't believe you for a second.

Great post, SF. I've never seen a problem with doing some cleaning.

 

[Wenders]

I had a coach just tonight that used the word "perceive" instead of "reflect." For high school gamers, I have absolutely no problem with cleaning up small grammar or word usage mistakes.

College and beyond? I run the quotes verbatim. The coaches and athletes have been taught and told exactly what to say.

What I hate is when I interview someone and they start off with, "Please make me sound smart in the paper." Um, it's up to YOU to sound smart in the paper.

 

[Den1983]

I, too, have no problem with cleaning. Sources or people I talk to know I won't take their quotes out of context, but they also trust I don't make them sound like an idiot, too,

 

[BB Bobcat]

Anyone read the Jamie Moyer story the other day? He was quoted as saying the fact that he wouldn't move to the bullpen wad "parlayed" to him during contract negotiations. Obviously, he meant relayed.

That just looks stupid. When I read that I wondered if the reporters even knew the difference.

 

[Ace]

My favorite thing is seeing a quote with a word spelled wrong (or the wrong homophone such as there and their). As if the reporter knew the subject would have spelled it wrong when he said it.

 

[inthesuburbs]

SF_Express,

What I don't think I understand about your position, SF_Express, is the desire to always have a quote at all. The point of a quote is to capture what the person said, how they said it. There's no other reason to have a quote, is there? So, if the person says something that can't be published, or doesn't make sense, then don't quote it. Don't make up other words instead. Don't put your words in parentheticals. Just paraphrase it. Or use the part of the quote that does make sense, and paraphrase the rest.

Why is there such aversion to paraphrasing, as if that's somehow a bad thing? Is it the pressure that bad editors apply -- oh, it's the fourth graf, so why haven't I read a quote yet? (Regardless of the question: Do we have a good quote?) Is it the feeling that if you don't have a quote, no one will think you were really there?

Why not paraphrase? Why go instead to the position of saying: Hey, I just make stuff up when I feel like it.

The commonsense solution, perfectly in line with accuracy, seems to be: (1) Quote the good parts, the parts that don't need any words to be changed, or any words jammed in with parentheses or brackets, and (2) paraphrase the rest.

 

[Stitch]

SF_Express,

What I don't think I understand about your position, SF_Express, is the desire to always have a quote at all. The point of a quote is to capture what the person said, how they said it. There's no other reason to have a quote, is there? So, if the person says something that can't be published, or doesn't make sense, then don't quote it. Don't put your words in parentheticals. Just paraphrase it. Or use the part of the quote that does make sense, and paraphrase the rest.

Why is there such aversion to paraphrasing, as if that's somehow a bad thing? Is it the pressure that bad editors apply -- oh, it's the fourth graf, so why haven't I read a quote yet? (Regardless of the question: Do we have a good quote?) Is it the feeling that if you don't have a quote, no one will think you were really there.

Why not paraphrase? Why go instead to the position of saying: Hey, I just make stuff up when I feel like it.

The commonsense solution, perfectly in line with accuracy, seems to be: (1) Quote the good parts, the parts that don't need words jammed in with parentheses or brackets, and (2) paraphrase the rest.

There is someone at my shop that uses parentheses almost every one of their quotes, usually to explain what point a person was trying to make. 99 percent of the time, you know what the person was talking about with reading what's in the parentheses.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

When I broke in, we didn't use tape recorders and some of the people talked faster than I could write. We got it as close as we could, but I would guess that 95 percent of the quotes in the paper each day were approximations.

The easy answer is that your paper probably has a policy and someone is being paid to know that policy. Ask him. Or her.

 

[lmcmillan33]

A writer at my paper always quotes people as saying "We got to..."

One coach's wife called in and complained that he was making him look like an idiot and that he doesn't talk that way.

I can't say for sure what was actually said, but certainly a lot of coaches do say "We got to" instead of "We've got to" or "We have to."

Still, this writer quotes "We got to" every time. I'm not sure the writer understands it is incorrect. I always correct his quotes to say, "We've got to." It is so hard to hear with certainty that they said it incorrectly because there is so little difference. I tend to give the coaches the benefit of the doubt.