What happens when a public official misspeaks? Should a news outlet edit the quotation, paraphrase it, or just leave it be?
This happens every day, of course, and news outlets often edit quotations by inserting ellipses in them, or by inserting something in brackets or parentheses as explanation or substitution.
Here’s one example, from the controversy over the nomination of Cathleen Black, a Hearst executive, as chancellor of the New York City school system.
Charles Barron, a city councilman, has been among the most vocal opponents.
“And Cathie Black is unqualified to teach in a classroom, nevertheless run the largest education system in the country,” Barron said at a protest over the weekend.
If it doesn’t make any sense to you when you read that, you’re right. “Nevertheless” means “despite that,” but, as an adverb, it needs a verb to modify. “Run” is a verb, but the syntax is off: “And Cathie Black is unqualified to teach in a classroom, despite that run the largest education system in the country” doesn’t make sense, either.
If you hear him say it, it makes more sense. But in its text version, posted on the same page as its video, NY1 edited the quote: “And Cathie Black is unqualified to teach in a classroom, nevertheless [will] run the largest education system in the country.” Gothamist, a Manhattan-centric blog, also edited the quote, linking to NY1’s video.
If you hadn’t heard Barron speak, you might wonder whether NY1 added the word “will” or paraphrased something longer in the quotation—since brackets in quotations are used for both. That second assumption might make for interesting discussion among readers, such as whether Barron said something disparaging (and we’re making this up) like “nevertheless this unqualified buffoon will run the largest education system in the country” or long-winded (again, we’re making this up) “nevertheless, in a move that is sure to raise hackles throughout this great metropolis of ours, she will be allowed to run the largest education system in the country.” That first option could lead people to believe NY1 was softening Barron’s remarks to go easy on Black; the second could lead people to believe NY1 wants Barron to look less verbose. Instant, but unintended, spin!
In addition, the edit of the quotation makes the assumption of what Barron attempted to say, and in so doing can alter readers’ perceptions of what he did say. It’s a dangerous assumption to make, especially in these days when nearly everything a public official says or does is posted on YouTube or captured in an audio file. Who is the reader going to believe: Her own ears or your print version?
If you heard him say it, you probably would have realized that he probably meant to say “And Cathie Black is unqualified to teach in a classroom, much less run the largest education system in the country.” CBS News, which also posted an audio file of Barron, did not edit the quotation in its text.
The confusion of “nevertheless” for “much less” is not common, and occurs almost exclusively in spoken English rather than written. More common is the addition of “but” before “nevertheless,” which is simply redundant.
So back to the original question: What to do when the misspeaking happens?
We’re strongly in favor of confusing or misleading the reader as little as possible. If it appears that a written something will make less sense than a spoken something, either paraphrase—outside the quotation marks—or use only the parts of the quotation that you don’t need to “edit.” In this case, a fix is easy: “And Cathie Black is unqualified to teach in a classroom,” Barron said, much less “run the largest education system in the country.”
Nevertheless, remember that a reader’s understanding, much less your reputation, is sometimes at stake when you put different words in people’s mouths.
I hate brackets in quotes. I think they're lazy and confusing. Nevertheless, this might have been a good time to use them.
#1 Posted by Lynn Klyde-Silverstein, CJR on Mon 29 Nov 2010 at 06:19 PM
The problem with the paraphrasing suggested at the end is that the reporter is then making his or her own assumption of what the speaker actually meant. There's no reason to believe, though, that readers are any less capable of making that assumption than the reporter, and no reason to believe that the readers are more likely to be "confused or misled" by the full quote than the reporter would be.
#2 Posted by Tom T., CJR on Wed 1 Dec 2010 at 12:09 AM
Tom:
If the reporter hadn't heard the quotation, you'd be right, in that the reporter can't assume what was meant, though the actual difference is slight in this example. If you listen to/watch Barron in this case, however, it's clear that it was a misspeak; his tone sets up a contrast or a range: "she can't even do this; she thinks she can do that harder thing?" and not a contradiction of "she can't even do this; yet this she will do that?" The real danger is in "playing" with quotes for housekeeping reasons. Here's one example: -- "He then told [President Barack Obama] that war could result if those moves were made." The speaker probably said "him," but the reporter hadn't yet introduced Obama, so had to do so. But putting the first reference in brackets -- housekeeping -- intrudes in the quote, and is unnecessary, since the "good" part of the quotation follows the pronoun. So why not write He then told President Barack Obama "that war could result if those moves were made." The reader isn't distracted by the brackets, and the impact from the quotation is intact. (That's only one way to do that.) In my years of editing, I have yet to run into a situation (outside of a transcript or reprinted text, where it might be unavoidable) where a bracket in a quotation could not be avoided. If you have to explain the important part of the quotation inside the quotation, it's not a good quotation to begin with.
#3 Posted by Merrill Perlman, CJR on Wed 1 Dec 2010 at 02:44 PM
'Let alone' will also do, right?
#4 Posted by Krishna, CJR on Tue 7 Dec 2010 at 11:23 AM