I appreciated our class regarding quotations this evening. Had my audio equipment worked, I would have liked to ask about journalists' treatment of swear words. It might have been covered when I was wrestling with my computer equipment. So many issues were discussed and helped.
I may be the only one, but I don't think there should be rigid rules about directly quoting those who speak with different dialects, those who use swear words, or other issues. I do think journalists have to be careful they understand another person when talking to someone who has a different accent or dialect, cultural understanding, nonverbal communication, affiliation, etc., as well as not stereotype. I've spoken with a Bostonian, I could not have understood if my life depended on it. All I wanted to know was how to get to Boylston Street. There may be times when capturing a quote exactly as it is said has value, other times, it may just be a means of diminishing the speaker or the reader. I'm planning on watching for examples in the Times over the next couple of weeks and add to this blog posting in the reply section.I don't have enough experience yet, but I do think some regs could be eased in the business. And of course, that view may change.
New York Times article on the use of profanity along with a video of Biden and Obama.
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/why-do-educated-people-use-bad-words/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
Post Script: I often test my blog from various browsers and post it at our Grey Sparrow Facebook page, so don't make any assumptions about 'hits' or 'views' regarding my blog, although we have had a couple of discussions on our Facebook page about Picayune. Everyone appreciated Maureen's photo of the Syrians, and an instructor wanted to know about ledes and nutgrafs. I referred them to sources privately and publicly.
If you're offended at strong language, don't read the link. The Guardian leads the pack with language and they don't change the spelling of the words--the Observer came in second.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2010/apr/14/swearing-guardian
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt was an informative class for sure. When I watch BBC world, I love to hear the interviewee's way of speaking English. Their pronunciation, intonation, and grammar may not be perfect, but audience understand. I agree with a lot of things you said in your blog. As you mentioned, I do feel as though it is my responsibility as a journalist "to be careful understanding" the international interviewees. I have to question them enough to make sure I am understanding them correctly, and I have to make sure I am not having any form of stereotype interviewing them. I find this part extremely hard because I'm too busy writing down what the interviewee is saying, word by word, rather than try to think what this person is saying as I am jotting down. But since it is the matter of quotation, I feel so stressed out to not miss a single word he or she says. Even in time I record them, for some reason, I don't rely on the technology and find myself writing down like crazy. For my next interview, I am going to relax, listen to the words, question, and throw more questions, to find the best fitting quotation for my writing.
ReplyDeleteClair, that's hard for me too, trying to write and listen. A correspondent did give me a tip last year. Ask an unimportant question you can miss to keep the interviewee busy while you write the important answers. I've never tried that. I think I might try a tape recorder with permission. Angus mentioned a new app he purchased for interviews.
ReplyDeleteWhen I interviewed on the phone in child welfare, I listened with a headset and typed while the client talked. I just repeated any points of confusion for clarification. In person, that's more problematic and I used to scribble notes with a one on one. CP tape records all interviews now. Recordings became mandatory right before I left Child welfare.