Quotes are sacred

David,

A fine point. And I guess I fall on the side that says 'uh' isn't a word, so removing it and other interjections is no harm, no foul.

However, someone says "fixin' to get some grub" I'm not changing it to "[preparing] to get some [food]."

It's all a personal, or employer's style, thing. That's where my border is. To each his/her own.

 

In a perfect world, yes.

But again, not everybody on earth works with a tape recorder. Sometimes, such as on a severe deadline, it is impossible to use one. (If you are covering a late West Coast game and still transcribing tape 15 minutes after deadline, you're doing it wrong). So how do you know what you're using is "verbatim" anyway?

Tape recorders weren't always used in our profession, meaning we have a long, long tradition of not quoting people "verbatim."

True story: At my first job, I covered the local high school, then got moved up to the local college beat. There was a player at the local high school who went on to play at the local college at exactly the same time I got my promotion, which meant I covered him for about six years consecutively.

A few years later, after we'd both moved on and left town, I happened to run into him at a bar in a completely different city. He told me, "The one thing I appreciated was that you never misquoted me."

Now, I wasn't even using a tape recorder back then. I basically interviewed him, on every occasion, using the old "pad and pen" method. There is no way I quoted him verbatim every single time, or even most of the time. But I never misquoted him. That's the point.

People don't remember the exact phrasing of every quote they give you. I know it sounds like sacrilege, but our foremost job vis a vis quotes is to give readers an somewhat accurate representation of what was said. Complete and total word-for-word veracity is secondary.

Now, there are always exceptions. If you are on a major beat where several reporters would possibly use the same quote, it's a good idea to use a recorder. If there's a quote that you know is going to be controversial, get it exactly right (Did Steinbrenner just call that guy a "fat fucking toad" or a "fat fucking frog?") I've been on beats where competing writers would double-check with one another, to make sure everyone was running a quote in the same form.

But in general, complete and total word-for-word accuracy on quotes is overrated and secondary. I will always believe this. Nobody cares.

 

Short answer is, every newspaper I worked for did this, and that's why the all-or-nothing "quotes are sacred" philosophy simply isn't realistic, nor should it be.

This isn't just because of cleaning up grammar. Before tape or digital recorders -- or among those who still don't use them -- quotes will only be good as your scribbled notes. Nobody's going to get them 100 percent right, ever.

As long as the printed words accurately reflect what the speaker was getting at and aren't manipulated for meaning or intent but simply to clean up grammar, take out extraneous sounds, etc., there's nothing wrong with that. Great, great newspaper people have been doing that way for years and years.

 

From an AP story. I'm sure this is just what he said:

"In the end it became obvious to us that it made more sense for Oshawa to move John to another team," Tavares' agent, Pat Brisson, told The Canadian Press.
"We are glad that it was done in a professional manner. ... After being in Oshawa for 3.5 years, it's not an easy departure for John."

I'm guessing the agent said "three and a half years" and not "3.5 years."

 

Seriously? It's one thing to eliiminate the uhs and add a g to goin.' It's a whole different thing to simply not care if you get all the words right. I kind of see your point that without a recording device it is difficult at times to get it perfect, but it is our job to make sure a person is quoted accurately. I'm on board with there being minimal allowance for cleaning things and not letting someone look like an ass, based on your paper's standards, etc., but this attitude is alarming.

 

I believe an exception is made for historical figures (i.e. Hitler, Churchill, Mozart, etc.)

 

If my attitude is alarming, I'm probably not doing a great job of explaining it. It kind of dawned on me two pages ago to shut up, lest I lead some to believe that I advocate making quotes up entirely. Of course, I don't advocate that at all.

One example of what I am talking about: I once covered a coach who we swore had ADD. He would start off on one train of thought, and switch gears -- mid-sentence sometimes -- and go to another. If we worried about quoting him word-for-word all the time, he would have never been quoted in anything.

This whole thread of discussion started with a poster saying that using (parentheses) is the middle of a quote is akin to misquoting someone. Which is what got me sidetracked on this ridiculousness anyway.

 

I got your point, but the way you stated it was of concern. I didn't really believe you thought that (at least I hoped not). I understand what you're saying, and those kinds of coaches are the toughest to deal with. Just have to do your best to make sense of it and make sure to present it as accurately as you can while still having it make sense. Uhs, umms, stuttering, etc. is not necessary, but the words are. If it's just meandering thoughts, don't use the quote, or use the best part and paraphrase the rest.