We Gonna Be Championship!’

[Benjamin Grimm]

I thought this was interesting. Years ago I probably would have been on the side of "cleaning" the quotes, but as the article says, now that we frequently see athletes being interviewed on TV, we know how they really talk, so I think I've moved to Team Verbatim.


"We Gonna Be Championship!": A New Approach To "Fixing" Sports Quotes

[Ceetar]

If you want to clean the quotes, don't quote them. paraphrase. Otherwise, quote them as they say it.

[soupcan]

Yeah, you can't 'clean up' the quotes.

It bugs the shit out of me when I read grammatically incorrect statements because I think it validates the errors in a way that says its acceptable to speak this way. I mean, I guess it is but if my kids did it, I'd immediately correct them.

So no you can't edit them and yes, I pass judgment on the speaker.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Based on my experience in reporting, quotes are cleaned up routinely, whether it's the mayor or a man on the street interview.

If you ever see a quote with a "gonna," "kinda," "you know," "um," and other things that appear in every non-scripted line, you can assume it was either added for emphasis by the speaker, or the reporter was trying to make the person he quoted look bad.

When I was an intern years ago, I turned in a story with a quote where someone said "the fellas over here..." And it was changed to "fellows" in the paper. I asked why, and noted that's not what the guy said or would ever say. The editor looked at me like I was crazy.

Now, the examples in the story are extreme, and a challenge when the reporter is dealing with someone for whom English is a second language. But if you are fixing one, then you have to wonder where the line is for the other.

The proliferation of electronic media does make things a little different and you do have to wonder. But it's been the common practice for decades.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I've been journalizming forever and would say I quote less and less all the time. I only try and use quotes when they truly say things I can't. And I cut the crap out of them and use only parts that move the story forward. 98% of the sports-story quotes published are worthless anyway, like the Gomez one.

[Ceetar]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I've been journalizming forever and would say I quote less and less all the time. I only try and use quotes when they truly say things I can't. And I cut the crap out of them and use only parts that move the story forward. 98% of the sports-story quotes published are worthless anyway, like the Gomez one.

Doesn't change my thoughts, but I wonder how many high-ups are going: "Make sure you have player quotes in there!" because they're clinging to the idea that the beat guys having access to get mostly meaningless say-nothing quotes is the only thing keeping newspapers afloat.

[Edgy MD]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: 98% of the sports-story quotes published are worthless anyway, like the Gomez one.

I guess the question, then, is: Are they more valuable if left syntactically intact?

[G-Fafif]

I watched TC's postgame availability (I hate the word "presser") after Syndergaard's start the other night and he said Noah rose to "the occasion". The AP story had it as rose to "the challenge". Both mean more or less the same thing, so the end product doesn't suffer, but I wonder how hard it was to get it as it was said.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Ceetar wrote: ...because they're clinging to the idea that the beat guys having access to get mostly meaningless say-nothing quotes is the only thing keeping newspapers afloat.

I really doubt that's true. Both that it's what's keeping newspapers afloat and that anyone thinks that.

Newspapers are still around because there are still readers around who appreciate how wonderful they are. Even though there are fewer of such readers and newspapers aren't as wonderful as they used to be.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Ceetar wrote: ...because they're clinging to the idea that the beat guys having access to get mostly meaningless say-nothing quotes is the only thing keeping newspapers afloat. I really doubt that's true. Both that it's what's keeping newspapers afloat and that anyone thinks that. Newspapers are still around because there are still readers around who appreciate how wonderful they are. Even though there are fewer of such readers and newspapers aren't as wonderful as they used to be.

You don't think there are newspaper/website execs requiring athlete quotes in content? That's what I'm really saying, crappy state of journalism aside (I suspect newspapers are as 'wonderful' as they used to be, we just didn't notice how bad they were)

[Benjamin Grimm]

You're just being a snob. Newspapers are much more than sports stories.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: You're just being a snob. Newspapers are much more than sports stories.

sure. bird-cage liner. political weapon. nice place to do a crossword and a sudoku.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Snob.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Snob.

Well sure, but a snob in the way people insisting on using cars instead of horses for travel are snobs.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Do you really think the Internet is so much better than newspapers because it's on a screen instead of paper? It's still content written by human beings. And do you really think that tweets are better than long-form journalism?

[Zvon]

Ceetar wrote: I've been journalizming forever and would say I quote less and less all the time. I only try and use quotes when they truly say things I can't. And I cut the crap out of them and use only parts that move the story forward. 98% of the sports-story quotes published are worthless anyway, like the Gomez one. Doesn't change my thoughts, but I wonder how many high-ups are going: "Make sure you have player quotes in there!" because they're clinging to the idea that the beat guys having access to get mostly meaningless say-nothing quotes is the only thing keeping newspapers afloat.

What's keeping newspapers afloat? Old fogeys like me.

I don't want my news from the internet. Because they put out news before confirming it. It's like they run to the phone to call their neighbor, not concerned with the facts, more concerned with the impact.

I'll wait for my responsible newspaper, thank you very much (the NY rags are not in the responsible category imo). Sometimes they might get it wrong, but the next day they will set the record straight. The record on the web is all over the place and many times inaccurate (with no repercussion).

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I've been journalizming forever and would say I quote less and less all the time. I only try and use quotes when they truly say things I can't. And I cut the crap out of them and use only parts that move the story forward. 98% of the sports-story quotes published are worthless anyway, like the Gomez one.

This is true! Quotes are way overused. I tell my students that they should only use a quote if someone said something colorfully.

It becomes a formula for some. I had an editor who insisted that a quote be the third paragraph of every story. If I put a quote on the fourth or sixth paragraph, he'd move it to the third. One night I was mischievous and turned in a story with none at all. All the information was there and everything was attributed. Just paraphrased. Drove him nuts. I was a bit of a troublemaker some times.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Guest

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Do you really think the Internet is so much better than newspapers because it's on a screen instead of paper? It's still content written by human beings. And do you really think that tweets are better than long-form journalism?

no, i think it's a billion times better for _delivering_ the same shoddy reporting.

And I could point to a billion places where tweets are better than short form journalism. Maybe not long-form, but the newspaper isn't the place for that either. People are no longer committing to reading the 50 pages _you_ select. They want to read the 50 pages a day that _they_ select. imo, if newspapers want to truly survive, they need to become dynamic. Because what I just said about selecting the content you read isn't quite true. We don't want the 50 pages of national watered down broad news. We want it cultivated to our interests. Newspapers should be a lot like feed readers, but with editors. We'd all have 10 pages on sports/the Mets in 'our' edition of the paper, but there would be a sport person running it that would omit pieces that were basically just Puma writing Colon fat jokes. Unless our personal cultivation wanted the gossipy type stuff like that. Some would get Harvey's beer flight lineup from last night and the specs on the girl he was with, Others wouldn't see it at all.

From a software standpoint, it'd be pretty easy to write a program that dynamically prints stories tailored to a personal taste and dynamically piece it together into a newspaper format that could be then delivered the same way (the newspaper guy would just have to have it ordered and sorted) every morning.

Developing the algorithm that generates that paper based on interests would be more difficult, but also a lot of fun imo. Sorta like how Pandora works, but probably better.

Zvon wrote: What's keeping newspapers afloat? Old fogeys like me. I don't want my news from the internet. Because they put out news before confirming it. It's like they run to the phone to call their neighbor, not concerned with the facts, more concerned with the impact. I'll wait for my responsible newspaper, thank you very much (the NY rags are not in the responsible category imo). Sometimes they might get it wrong, but the next day they will set the record straight. The record on the web is all over the place and many times inaccurate (with no repercussion).

And what percentage of the people that read the wrong print story find/read the correction the next day? It's less than the Internet for sure. Newspapers are subject to that same 'rush to call the neighbor' bit, because they have a hard deadline and a set volume. On the Internet you can wait another five minutes. Or publish a "as of now" or report partial information, as long as you qualify it properly. And certainly breaking news is wasted in the paper these days. Any developing story is going to overrun by the length it takes to format, print, deliver to consumer.

There's a few more grains of salt on the internet, in that anyone can throw words out there and it's a higher responsibility of the reader to understand how to filter noise.

[Benjamin Grimm]

They want to read the 50 pages a day that _they_ select.

I see that as a weakness and not a strength. When I get news from the Internet (and I do, frequently) it is, as you say, likely to be stuff I'm interested in. But when I page through a newspaper I see other stuff, stuff I wouldn't have sought out. And I end up learning about things I wouldn't have otherwise been exposed to.

[Edgy MD]

The echo chamber of self-selection has made us all into a crazed tribes of ignorami, lacking any capacity for intellectual empathy, but YAY! we killed that elitist priesthood of boring, thoughtful, hardworking journalists.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: They want to read the 50 pages a day that _they_ select. I see that as a weakness and not a strength. When I get news from the Internet (and I do, frequently) it is, as you say, likely to be stuff I'm interested in. But when I page through a newspaper I see other stuff, stuff I wouldn't have sought out. And I end up learning about things I wouldn't have otherwise been exposed to.

I think this is a false flag personally. If you're going to be insular about your knowledge, it doesn't matter where you do it. You can seek out that other article on the internet the same way you do in the newspaper. But many people are going to skip over it in the paper too. There are plenty of people stuck in the Fox News and rags like the NY Post loop without exposing themselves to anything else.

I see plenty of different stuff on the internet, in my feeds, where I browse. It's often tangentially related to an interest though, but that's why it's called an interest. I'm not saying "only show me Mets posts from Adam Rubin" but "Show me quality Mets posts, and maybe toss in a cool article about the Australian League, or Curling". You'd certainly be able to work a 5% random weight into any curated algorithm that would just pick something at random.

But that's sorta the thing. The Internet allows you to seek out the quality stuff that YOU like, without having to over-invest in popular things other people like. I'm not going to read those 15 pages on politics, so why should someone was the paper and ink sending it to me?

[soupcan]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: They want to read the 50 pages a day that _they_ select. I see that as a weakness and not a strength. When I get news from the Internet (and I do, frequently) it is, as you say, likely to be stuff I'm interested in. But when I page through a newspaper I see other stuff, stuff I wouldn't have sought out. And I end up learning about things I wouldn't have otherwise been exposed to.

Absolutely agree.

When I used to read the New York Times in print, I would at least leaf through every section, very frequently stopping at an article or topic that I wouldn't have sought out on my own. Since I've started reading the Times solely online, I truly have to make an effort to do that and even so I don't read nearly as much of the paper as I used to.

[Guest sharpie]

Agree as well. I often read the Times in print for that very reason.

As far as quotes go, I have on several occasions been interviewed or been on panels which were transcribed and I always appreciate the opportunity to clean up my quotes, not to change their meaning but make them grammatically work on the page. Also, people transcribing often garble words so that it would read like what I was saying made no sense but if transcribed accurately would.

[Zvon]

Ceetar wrote: And what percentage of the people that read the wrong print story find/read the correction the next day? It's less than the Internet for sure. Newspapers are subject to that same 'rush to call the neighbor' bit, because they have a hard deadline and a set volume. On the Internet you can wait another five minutes. Or publish a "as of now" or report partial information, as long as you qualify it properly. And certainly breaking news is wasted in the paper these days. Any developing story is going to overrun by the length it takes to format, print, deliver to consumer. There's a few more grains of salt on the internet, in that anyone can throw words out there and it's a higher responsibility of the reader to understand how to filter noise.

100% of the folks who read the paper on a daily basis will see that correction the next day. Because we read the thing.

My newspaper, The Press of A.C., doesn't rush anything. If the story does not have a solid foundation they will wait to run it.

During my time on the planet I don't think the newspapers were EVER used for breaking news. Sure, and extra edition to sell some late ones with a hot story but by the time that paper has hit the streets whatever big that happened was already old news. We had TV by then and before that, radio.

Yea, I responsibly filter my internet by not swallowing everything I read in news reports or on msg board posts.
Higher responsibility....pppffffffft.

[Ceetar]

Zvon wrote: 100% of the folks who read the paper on a daily basis will see that correction the next day. Because we read the thing.

I doubt that strongly.

And not just factual errors. The story that turns out to not have been as juicy doesn't get a lot of followup, if any. But that's fine, it's just entertainment and there's plenty of chance you miss a followup on the internet too if it's weeks later.

But the newspaper just brings me nothing of value. I stumble upon enough interesting stuff that's not an echo-chamber. I mean, it's not like Twitter is a cacophony of people falling all over each other to agree. I can jettison a post when I realize it's crap or not relevant to me in an instant. Plenty of people get value and different opinions out of say Phil Mushnick, but by not letting the Daily News editors be the curator of my news, I can simply drop him and forget it.

It's a lot like only listening to music that's on the radio.

[Zvon]

Ceetar wrote: Zvon wrote: 100% of the folks who read the paper on a daily basis will see that correction the next day. Because we read the thing. I doubt that strongly. And not just factual errors. The story that turns out to not have been as juicy doesn't get a lot of followup, if any. But that's fine, it's just entertainment and there's plenty of chance you miss a followup on the internet too if it's weeks later. But the newspaper just brings me nothing of value. I stumble upon enough interesting stuff that's not an echo-chamber. I mean, it's not like Twitter is a cacophony of people falling all over each other to agree. I can jettison a post when I realize it's crap or not relevant to me in an instant. Plenty of people get value and different opinions out of say Phil Mushnick, but by not letting the Daily News editors be the curator of my news, I can simply drop him and forget it. It's a lot like only listening to music that's on the radio.

It's a generational thing. Folks my age who read the paper, read the entire paper. The Press of A.C. is a responsible paper that's more concerned with news as opposed to entertainment. You gotta believe.

Like yesterday I heard all these reports about that down Egypt Air flight. I heard a slew of things some accurate, some not so much. A lot of speculating fluff talk (for hours)
But I heard it all. Today, reading the newspaper with my coffee, I'll read about it and the reports from yesterday that were confirmed in the article are the facts I will take away as truth. These are the things I will believe I know to be fact if it comes to a conversation about the topic.
To me it's all in flux until I see it set down in ink.

I think that's a generational thing.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I don't expect the younger generation to appreciate newspapers the way we do, but to be so dismissive of them is just arrogant and ignorant.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

/\
Yup

[Guest cooby]

I remember as a kid reading in the Baseball Digest interviews with latinos with perfect English diction and realized that it was corrected. Made me feel odd, but yet I realized why they were doing it. Hearing latinos and their beautiful accents do interviews can sometimes be a trip, but worth the effort to decipher!

[Guest d'Kong76]

I have to call the NYTimes and re-activate my Fri-Sun weekender thing.
I like to read the paper on the porch. Tablets, phones and laptops... too
much glare and bad for the eyes.