Quoting Sources

[martian687]

Are you allowed to modify capitalization and spelling when quoting a source, if you don't use [] to indicate editorial changes?

CNN:"Thus, right up front, I'd like to apologize to all of you -- today's outage was a Big Deal, and we're treating it as such," Treynor wrote.

BBC:"Thus, right up front, I'd like to apologise to all of you - today's

Comments

[morganlf]

Hmmm...academically, you'd footnote it if it's a change like adding italics or capitals. I'm not sure what best practice is regarding capitals for journalism.

[triath]

Generally you leave it as is and use [sic], right?

[color_so_loud]

I don't know what the rule is, but it sure does seem pompous for the BBC to convert it to the British spelling. And changing the capitalization kind of changes the message, though I couldn't really explain why. Their modifications irk me.

[color_so_loud]

CNN's comma seems appropriate, though. I think it's common practice to change a period to a comma when you use that sentence structure.

[dclayh]

I think the bigger issue for CNN is converting an em-dash into two hyphens.

[color_so_loud]

I didn't even notice that at first because I am so used to using a double-hyphen as an em-dash. AFAIK they are synonymous?

[sillygoosegirl]

In the US, I'd say that you need to use [] if you are going to change it, but that it's better to just leave it as it is and include [sic]. However, I believe capitalization rules are different in England, similar to how some words are spelled differently, so I probably wouldn't accuse the BBC of misquoting without checking local grammar conventions.

[omega697]

AFAIK, [sic] is used to indicate that an incorrect (or very unusual) spelling is not a transcription error, but was present in the original source. I don't know if the emphatic capitalization counts. I'd probably just add "(emphasis his/hers/in source)".

[ricevermicelli]

I'm seeing the changes as copy-editing or typesetting details, and please keep in mind that copy-editors and type setters may or may not see the original source material (they may not have the time), and may be working with tools that produce different results. The difference you note between the source and CNN isn't even really a difference - CNN uses two endashes to make an emdash, which is how it was always done back in the day when type was physically set, and how some word-processing software produces an emdash even now

[martian687]

Yeah, I didn't consider CNN's modifications "changes", but I was curious about the BBC's modifications. I think changing the capitalization of Big Deal does slightly alter the meaning; it places less emphasis on it.

sillygoosegirl, I wasn't accusing anyone of anything, I was genuinely curious about spelling/capitalization conventions.

[kuddliphish]

I think changing the capitalization of Big Deal does slightly alter the meaning; it places less emphasis on it.

Yes, but capitalization as a form of emphasis is an American usage that would probably just look weird to British readers. Think of it as a form of translation from two very similar but not identical languages. If the quote was in a Spanish or French article, you would expect to words to be altered, right? And, as always, some nuance gets lost in translation.