Two Schools on Quoting Confuse the Reader.
1995; SAGE Publishing; Volume: 49; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
2161-4326
Autores Tópico(s)Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
ResumoWhat is a quote? No one can say with any authority. Some people sincerely believe that a direct quotation is what Associated Press Stylebook says it is, the exact words of a speaker. AP takes stand that quoting is a matter of factuality: Either a person did or did not utter specified words. To get words wrong is inaccurate. To change them deliberately is lie. AP's rule on quoting is unequivocal: Never alter quotations even correct minor grammatical errors or word usage.Compare AP's rule with advice in a 1986 book called Basic Magazine Writing. In discussing what goes inside quote marks, author Barbara Kevles said: I want stress again unequivocally: can substitute your words for vague or overly general terms by expert intensify meaning, make thought more vivid, or make idea clearer.This kind of advice is common in books aimed at aspiring magazine writers. In a book called How To Write Like a Pro (1982) Barry Tarshis, who was described as a writer for Playboy, New York, Harper's Bazaar and many other magazines, said that when interviewee is not articulate enough, you have little choice but take responsibility for quoted material. By taking responsibility for quotes he means to express in your own words gist of what somebody has though being extremely careful, obviously, not misrepresent person you're quoting.In A Treasury of Tips for Writers published by Society of Magazine Writers in 1975, Booton Herndon, credited with articles in Reader's Digest, Redbook, Esquire and others, said, I do not hesitate take liberties with words of my subjects, rearranging them, adding, and cutting...Nobody has ever objected.In field of non-fiction there have always been two competing definitions of a quotation, one which treats spoken words as facts which, like statistics, are be used but not changed by writer, and one which treats them as dialogue be massaged for effect along with all other words in an article. Logically this ambiguity is indefensible. Readers have a right know what a particular punctuation mark is supposed mean. If they make wrong supposition communication is bound be damaged.In practice, however, competing definitions have not been a serious problem because whole question has been covered by a protective haze of unquestioned assumptions. Readers apparently assume they are hearing a person's actual words within quote marks, and journalism is happy let them think so. After all, fact is soul of non-fiction and actual words are facts. Those in profession most likely make an issue of matter--Newspapers, wire services and others which accept logic of AP definition--do not raise question because they know they have their own vulnerability. No matter what is said about importance of integrity of quotes, who really wants try guarantee them? Editors who look skeptically at a statistic or an address never question how certain reporters manage get such perfect quotes no matter who they interview. (If doubt that altering quotes is a problem in mainstream journalism, see The, Uh, Quotation Quandary. Columbia Journalism Review, June 1990). In profession of journalism rule on quotations has been, Don't ask, don't tell.Trends affect quotingThis may no longer work because of two recent trends. First, a series of controversies over quotations has kept what was once strictly a professional question in public eye. The most famous of these was highly publicized law suit brought by psychiatrist Jeffrey Masson against The New Yorker writer Janet Malcolm. For ten years this case, which turned on question of whether changing a person's words within quotation marks is libelous, made its highly publicized way through trial courts, appeals courts, and finally Supreme Court. In 1991, Supreme Court ruled that a reporter accused of changing quotes is not shielded from a libel suit by First Amendment; matter must be decided in trial court like all other libel cases. …
Referência(s)