Author
|
Topic: Journalism question on direct quoting
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 09 October 2007 09:11 AM
Just curious: when you're quoting someone verbatim while writing an article, do you include the "verbal tics" like "um" and "uh" and "hmm" and "you know" and "like"?The reason I ask is because I just saw this in a CBC article and I thought it kind of sucked: quote: "They're letting like five teenagers at a time, but they're letting like adults go in," said Jeanette Tourout.
It seems to me that they could have edited the two "likes" out of that sentence since they're pretty much just verbal tics. But I'm not sure whether journalistic ethics require that they be left in or not. I know if I were quoted in an article, I would never want all my "likes" and "you knows" to be recorded. I have a terrible habit of doing that, and it seems to me that leaving them in is a way of damaging the person's credibility. Anyhow - does anyone know? [ 09 October 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jrose
babble intern
Babbler # 13401
|
posted 09 October 2007 10:09 AM
I'm trying to remember what my Journalism school profs said on this one, and if I remember correctly, you're right, Michelle. "Ummmmmmms" and "Uhhhh like ummmmmm" can be left out, but I do recall discussing in a lecture how leaving these in can be tactics to "dumb-down a source." Ie. Let's say a journalist was writing a story on a politician he or she doesn't necessarily care for. Leaving in his or her fumblings over words, constant "likes" and "uhs" isn't going to paint the best picture for a potential political leader. I believe one discussion we had in J-School was how to quote Jean Chretien's sometimes broken English. I wish I could remember the conclusion that we came to.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Sharon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4090
|
posted 09 October 2007 05:24 PM
There are at least two -- and probably more -- schools of journalistic thought on this subject, each one as vehement in its preference as the next. I have worked with an editor (not for long!) who insisted that anything inside quotation marks must be exactly as it came out of the speaker's mouth. This can render a quotation almost unreadable. In my own editorial life, I would usually take out the "ers," "ums, etc. unless there was a real good reason for leaving them -- or some of them -- in. A hesitation may be an integral part of the speaker's thought, for example. The speaker may intend for the hesitation to be expressed. On the other hand, it may be that the speaker is obfuscating and it becomes the responsibility of the reporter to use the "ums" and "ers" to accurately convey the nature of the interview. A problem can arise when some people's language is cleaned up -- a prime minister, maybe -- and another person's -- not a prime minister -- is not. Having said this, the use of "like" in the story under discussion here doesn't strike me as a verbal tic -- as the repetition of "you know" or "I mean" would. It's the way many young people talk and I didn't sense any disrespect in what was probably an accurate quotation.
From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299
|
posted 15 October 2007 11:05 AM
... and sometimes Y quote: This week: Um Saturday Oct. 13 and Monday Oct. 15Jane investigates the power of, er, hesitations and 'disfluencies' in speech. Speech trainer Arlene Cohen and her client Ken Webster explain their reasons for trying to get rid of ums and ers. Tim Page, friend and biographer of Glenn Gould, describes how the pianist scripted a series of radio interviews word-for-word, to avoid unintended clutter in their speech.
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|