Interview? When people put "quotes" around things, isn't that so you know, verbatim, what a person says so that you can draw whatever conclusions you want from it? I'm talking about the Couric interview with Biden today: On the cbs website, sitting right next to the video of it, exists quotes around sentences that drop some words here, some words there...Am I the only one that sees this as just another reason why news isn't 'news' anymore?

I mean some might say it's not that big of a deal because the idea coming across is the same...but the point is that when you put quotes around something, it has to be accurate:



Verbatim is bolded...CBS's version of verbatim is italicized:
Examples:

00:56,
"You say what's on your mind and I think people appreciate that. Have you found that you have to be uber-careful and disciplined in terms of being out on the campaign trail?"

"You say what's on your mind. Have you found that you have to be uber-careful and disciplined in terms of being out there on the campaign trail?"

1:48
"Part of what a leader does is to instill confidence, is demonstrate that he or she knows what they're talking about and to communicates to people. If you listen to me and follow what I'm suggesting, we can fix this. When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on television and didn't just talk about the, you know, princes of greed. He said, "look, here's what happened."

"Part of what being a leader does is to instill confidence is to demonstrate what he or she knows what they are talking about and to communicating to people ... this is how we can fix this," Biden said. "When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed. He said, 'look, here's what happened.'"

2:30:
"What was it about what he said that really resonated with you in particular?"

"What was it about what he said that really resonated with you?"

2:34,
"This is where the true middle class is Akron, Ohio."
"This is true middle class Akron, Ohio."

2:37:
I think he expressed what most working Americans feel at the moment. He seems to relate to our pain.
"I think he expressed what most people feel at the moment. He seems to relate to our pain,"

2:44:
"I want him in office because I believe he will do things for women."
"I want him in office because I think he'll do things for women."


Mind you that some of these may not be HUGE but I would think that when you are quoting someone...specifically your own news anchor, you'd want to AT LEAST get their OWN quotes right...I mean we're totally ignoring the fact that FDR wasn't the president during the crash, and TV's weren't invented then anyway...

9/23/2008 11:14:50 PM

Most of them aren't that bad... I can see why they'd edit them for the sake of keeping things short and clear... but ...

Quote :

"2:37: I think he expressed what most working Americans feel at the moment. He seems to relate to our pain. "I think he expressed what most people feel at the moment. He seems to relate to our pain," "

That's a pretty major change to the statement.

9/23/2008 11:18:38 PM

I thought this was particularly bad:

"Part of what a leader does is to instill confidence, is demonstrate that he or she knows what they're talking about and to communicates to people. If you listen to me and follow what I'm suggesting, we can fix this."

"Part of what being a leader does is to instill confidence is to demonstrate what he or she knows what they are talking about and to communicating to people ... this is how we can fix this"

as was when they left out Katie's interjected opinion of 'I think people appreciate that'

9/23/2008 11:29:07 PM

Changing words around and calling it a "quote" is a practice that begins with the middle school newspaper and never stops. It's generally just straight-up lazy journalism, and it's been going on forever. I don't think this signifies anything about the state of media today.

9/23/2008 11:54:05 PM

^ umm, wouldn't lazy, middle-school journalism say a LOT about the state of media today?

9/23/2008 11:59:35 PM

^Idiots writing news for idiots?

Sounds about right.

9/24/2008 12:00:41 AM

^^No, because that shit has been going on forever. mytwocents is suggesting that something has changed, that news isn't news anymore. And the news has changed. But fucking around with other people's words is not one of the changes. There have been bad journalists altering quotes since forever.

9/24/2008 12:04:33 AM

i dunno. I'm not really certain that Cronkite did that kind of shit, but I'm too young to know, really.

9/24/2008 12:09:58 AM

well certainly the practice of taking other people's quotes...verbatim...and quoting it as our own is something that we learn at a very early age...and we also learn that it's called plagiarism. So we also learn, at that same age or perhaps a bit later, is how to take someone's else's quotes and reword them to at least sound like they are our own. And I'm well aware that most of the media/news does this... What I'm not aware of, or at least wasn't until I happened to see it blatantly before me today, was people taking their quotes from their OWN work/interviews changing things around, and still claiming it as their own. Sometimes they put in words, sometimes they took them out.. I don't know about you but if I see an article on the CBS news website, and they've changed things up for 'print' purposes, then that says to me that the actual interview didn't convey what CBS wanted to convey and since creative editing can only go so far if you want to include the main idea of a statement, then all you can do is hope that no one takes the time to archive the interview verbatim and since usually, providing transcripts is done by the network itself, then they're free to fuck around and chances are good that no one else will even bother to note the difference.

I've read a fair amount of transcripted interviews where the actual video/audio of it was available and never have I seen the changing of words to this extent. Usually the 'ums' and stuttered words might get taken out but that's it.

9/24/2008 12:20:04 AM

bttt

9/24/2008 4:59:23 PM

^^ I agree that it doesnt matter if it was from your own interview or from someone elses. If you are putting QUOTES around it, then it is verbatim. If you are not, then yes you summarize and cite your source.

9/24/2008 5:20:30 PM

Jesus H... so Katie does her interview with Palin this morning...and wouldn't you know it....now they are blatantly making shit up. The entire tone of the interview is 180 degrees different than it was with Biden. I mean from the very start...but, and I'm only on to the like first couple minutes but Katie asks Palin something like (and I say something like because I don't feel like transcribing the actual question so for the sake of ease I'm going to go ahead and assume CBS paraphrased the question it asked as close to it was as possible.

Next Couric asked about the $700 billion government bailout of bad debt - and whether she supports it.

In the FIRST SENTENCE of her answer, she says...AND I QUOTE,"Palin: I'm ILL about the position that America is in and that we have to look at a $700 billion bailout."

But on the CBS site it claims she said, "Palin: I'm ALL about the position that America is in and that we have to look at a $700 billion bailout."

Tell me that's not some seriously fucked up "journalism" right there.

9/25/2008 1:01:28 AM

^Whoa. That "quote" is ridiculous. I'm gonna go try to find it for myself. Found it, and they totally got it wrong.

But, if we're talking about the tone of the interview, I can understand why Biden would be treated differently than Palin. Palin is such a fantastically shitty candidate for VP that you gotta be tough on that shit. I mean, the guy who mistypes the quotes for a living is probably a better candidate for VP. How are the media supposed to react to such a ridiculous and bizarre development in politics?

[Edited on September 25, 2008 at 1:43 AM. Reason : are the media, not is the media.]

9/25/2008 1:30:07 AM

I think that the media's love affair with Obama is going to cost. The mainstream media has ignored a lot of information that shows how dangerous this sham of a candidate is for this country while raking the opposition over the coals, and everyone other than his worshipers is tired of propaganda posing as responsible journalism.

9/25/2008 4:38:38 PM

Quote :

"Palin is such a fantastically shitty candidate for VP that you gotta be tough on that shit. I mean, the guy who mistypes the quotes for a living is probably a better candidate for VP. How are the media supposed to react to such a ridiculous and bizarre development in politics?"

...seriously?

9/25/2008 5:07:24 PM

and Biden is a good VP candidate? I guess with a presidential candidate as ridiculous as Obama, it doesn't really matter. At least Palin doesn't think that Roosevelt got on TV in 1929.

9/25/2008 5:15:30 PM

It's odd that they changed "working Americans" to "people" and "believe" to "think".

[Edited on September 25, 2008 at 5:29 PM. Reason : ]

9/25/2008 5:18:10 PM