Breaking language barriers

It is an interesting question. I try to avoid quoting subjects using poor grammar unless I mean to convey the subject has difficulty, is an idiot or is colorful. As mentioned above, there are ways to do that, even if you are a purist about direct quotes.

Personally, I don't think it makes someone from the Dominican Republic sound ignorant to be quoted that way.

The article about the White Sports Writers problem conveys this as a mistake. I disagree. It's a decision. But perhaps if the staff were more diverse there may have been a conversation about it.

Final thought: Direct quotes are overused by the majority of sports writers. Many think if they took the time to talk to someone, by golly, their long-winded, say-nothing quotes are going in the story.

If Moses were a sportswriter, he would staggered down the mountain with 156 commandments, asides and suggestions.

 

What would you recommend instead of direct quoting? I've been looking to try different ways to quoting.

 

Most of the best editors I've worked for have had the same general rule of thumb: If it's a game story or garden-variety feature or column, fix the language. If it's something more -- for instance, an in-depth Sunday centerpiece that might include a visit to an athlete's hometown -- there's a bit more latitude to quote in slang, dialect or whatever to help set the scene and the tone. But certainly never to the extreme that the Houston Chronicle writer went to.

 

These quotes could easily be paraphrased.

Or you could paraphrase part and quote directly just a word or phrase to avoid the awkward verbs.

 

If you've ever taken "like" and "you know" out of a quote the dozen times an athlete generally uses those words in a 30-second sound bite, you can't seriously think there's a need to preserve broken English in its natural state.

 

Again, drawing on experience with top-notch editors, most would not even allow "gonna" (instead of "going to") and "gotta" (instead of got to) into the paper. In fact, one sports desk stylebook I worked with forbade those usages in all cases; another one allowed them in rare instances that didn't include routine stories. Writers would argue, "Well, that's how so-and-so talks," and the editors would come back with, "True, but it's bad English and shouldn't be in the paper."

 

Agreed. Across the board. Had a fairly well-known writer who would routinely respond "Well, that's what he said" when I call with a question. Weeeellll, it doesn't make any sense!

 

I don't agree.
One of the best quotes I had came from a high school football coach talking about a key play in a close game several years ago — a fumble recovery for a long score, if I remember correctly. His closing line about the play was "Who'd a-thunk it?"
My editor wanted to take it out. She said it was bad grammar and used a word that didn't really exist. She was also a graduate of the private school the guy coached and thought it made her alma mater look bad.
We argued about it, and then a fellow reporter, also a graduate of the school, walked in. She asked him about it.
He read it and said, "Oh, you've got to put that in."
It ran.
We never received a complaint.

 

I was honestly surprised to see my ME use gonna in a quote recently (twice in one story, in fact). I always assumed it was common practice for industry veterans to clean up stuff like that.

 

Have to admit I would have been inclined to leave that quote in as a one-off usage. Though it's ungrammatical and uses a nonexistent word, it's folksy and something that isn't likely to be repeated in every high school game story. And it's certainly fresher than the typical boilerplate quotes from most high school coaches -- stuff along the lines of, "We're really proud of our kids."

 

What Bronco said. And it is ALL subjective. I would have run that quote as well. It's all about what serves the reader best and tells the story best. Period. If you need to have a discussion about it, as you guys did, do it.

 

Though it should be who'da thunk it? Just saying!