Yes, all those involved in about two hundred years of printed journalism before any recording devices were invented.
Speaking seriously, I do record interviews, but there is no problem interviewing people using just plain old note-taking -- it's just convenient to have a record for other purposes (podcasts, with the interviewee's permission, etc.)
I think the point wasn't the not recording thing, but rather using quotes that might not be word for word accurate but still have all the essential elements so the intended meaning is maintained, even if the exact wording was not.
I was taught (and did as taught, actually, for 20 years now) that using quotes that might not be word for word accurate but still have all the essential elements so the intended meaning is maintained, even if the exact wording was not, is an even more legitimate technique than keeping original wording intact -- because we as journalists are intended to deliver the meaning first, not the form; the fact of the matter rather the exact protocol; and not every speaker is a Cicero, so keeping the exact wording sometimes can even spoil the meaning, or make it indecipherable for the reader.
I don't disagree with you, but it's interesting to read this in juxtaposition to a few columns which I just read this week regarding this topic and taking an opposite stand - the one I was taught - that anything between quotes is sacred.
Two columns from the Washington Post ombudsman:
Quote, unquote: ... My view: Quotes should not be changed. If coaches or athletes are routinely "cleaned up," that should stop. Simply put, quotes should be and sound authentic.
A Dilemma Within Quotation Marks: ... Continuing from last week's column, I asked Post staffers and readers to comment on Post policy that using quotation marks means "those exact words should have been uttered in precisely that form." ...
It's an interesting discussion to raise. And you're comment is dead on, our job is to "deliver the meaning first, not the form." But then, that's where paraphrases and partial quotes come in. :shrug:
Yes, all those involved in about two hundred years of printed journalism before any recording devices were invented.
Speaking seriously, I do record interviews, but there is no problem interviewing people using just plain old note-taking -- it's just convenient to have a record for other purposes (podcasts, with the interviewee's permission, etc.)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Two columns from the Washington Post ombudsman:
Also worth checking out, Bob Steele pointed those columns out in a recent Poynter column: Quoted on Quotes: The Pitfalls of Fixing
It's an interesting discussion to raise. And you're comment is dead on, our job is to "deliver the meaning first, not the form." But then, that's where paraphrases and partial quotes come in. :shrug:
Reply
Leave a comment