I’ve been out of the game for a few years, so I suppose it’s possible some publications’ style guides have been adapted to permit correcting grammatical errors in social media posts without brackets. I recognize editors do themselves no favors when they are perceived to be grossly insensitive or elitist.
If I were editing a piece such as has been discussed here, I’d either put the correct language in brackets or paraphrase around the error. “A relative of one of the victims tweeted that the death would affect the family ‘for a long time.’” In the Zucker case, I’d come up with something like, “The actor tweeted, ‘I am a strong, independent, hard-working mother, business woman and partner to a great man,’ adding that she has learned not to let the words of others affect her self-worth. She also urged readers to treat one another ‘with kindness, dignity and respect,’ in all settings, including locker rooms.” In fact, the bigger problem with quoting social media is over-reliance on robotic re-transmission of entire tweets or big chunks of Facebook posts. A lot of (especially online) media outlets would do well to take a page from “Glengarry Glen Ross” and ABE: Always Be Editing. —Bill > On Oct 11, 2016, at 11:58 AM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > > I understand the traditional use of "sic", but I am questioning its use when > A) quoting easily available quotes from non-technical or professional sources > on social media and B) the person being quoted is in some personal distress > or crisis. > > For example, imagine a relative of someone killed in a mass shooting writes > in a tweet: "This death is going to effect our family for a long time". Does > the AP really need to add a dickish [sic] to point out that it's editors read > Strunk and White and the ignorant regular person did not? > > On Tuesday, 11 October 2016, BillPartsch <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > When quoting something written, some manner of clarification—usually > “[sic]”—is required, for the reasons Doug noted. The other option would be to > put the correct word in brackets: “…the words of others cannot [affect] the > value….” It’s not a judgment; it’s more about the re-publisher’s integrity. > Letting it slide indicates loose technical standards, which invites > second-guessing of reporting, fact-checking, and general professional > competence. For any media outlet worth its salt, the trade-off of potential > perceived dickishness is absolutely worth maintaining reader/viewer trust. > > A reporter transcribing a recorded spoken statement actually has some leeway > if the recording is not otherwise available to the public. The > reporter/writer can edit obvious grammatical errors or even factual errors > when it is beyond question that the source simply misspoke. For example, “I > remember when Bobby Kennedy got shot back in June of ’63,” can be changed to > “…June of ’68,” without brackets, if based on other statements, the speaker > momentarily confused the years of the two Kennedy assassinations. Such > practice is routine for Q&A’s online or in print and is typically accompanied > by a disclaimer that the content was “lightly edited" for length and clarity. > >> On Oct 11, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Doug Eastick <[email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >> >> personally, I love it when media places use [sic]. It provides clarity that >> the original author/speaker made and error and not the publisher. >> >> I've bin always struggled with proper English grammar (who? whom? effect? >> affect? big? bigly?) so I appreciate the edumacation wherever I can get it. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Brad Beam <[email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >> CBS just showed a Donald Trump tweet where “Desite” (instead of despite) was >> [sic]’d. >> >> >> >> From: [email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> >> [mailto:[email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>] On Behalf Of Adam >> Bowie >> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:10 >> To: tvornottv >> Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick? >> >> >> >> A bit of Googling suggests that quite a lot of outlets have used sic in >> their reporting of the quote. But I suspect that's largely because they're >> using an agency report as the backbone of their stories. >> >> >> >> From a good piece I found from 2014, it looks as though AP introduced sic >> into their stylebook around then, and I strongly suspect that it's their >> report that has been used as the substance of many of the other reports that >> quote Zucker. >> >> >> >> The same piece >> (https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/the-pedantic-censorious-quality-of-sic/ >> >> <https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/the-pedantic-censorious-quality-of-sic/>) >> also talks about how sic can be used in quite a superior way, especially >> when the mistake is common and one that the publication in question probably >> makes quite a lot. "Who" v "Whom" is noted. >> >> >> >> Personally, I think that small grammatical errors are fine to be glossed >> over, but more substantive mistakes should be noted, particularly where it's >> factually incorrect. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:39 AM, PGage <[email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >> >> I am interested in the feedback of those here who work in media or >> journalism or editing of some kind on how Yahoo News handled this >> presentation of a tweet by "Days of Our Lives" star Arianne Zucker on the >> Trump Tape (she was one of the women who was the subject of his bragging, >> and the target of Billy Bush's pimping): >> >> >> >> “I am a strong, independent, hard-working mother, business woman and partner >> to a great man,” she wrote. “I have grown to learn that the words of others >> cannot effect [sic] the value of my self-worth or define the content of my >> character. How we treat one another, whether behind closed doors, locker >> rooms or face-to-face, should be done with kindness, dignity and respect.” >> >> >> >> I of course understand if this was a verbal quote given to a reporter, who >> then transcribes it and wants to indicate that the subject said "effect" and >> not "affect", and does so with "sic". The same goes if the quote is from a >> book or hard to obtain periodical or private letter. But in a case like >> this, when the quote is obviously a transcription from the subject's public >> and easily available writing, and does not really change the meaning of the >> passage, don't the quotation marks themselves indicate that everything >> inside is as the author wrote them? If the reader is unsure who to blame, >> can't they pretty easily go to her twitter account and check for themselves? >> It seems like adding sic here is kind of a dick move, and mostly serves to >> embarrass the subject for making the kind of mistake that college freshmen >> (and many of us who have moved beyond that) everywhere make all the time. >> >> >> >> This is the fist time I have ever heard of Ms. Zucker, and I have no >> particular reason to defend her (and the substance of her quote seems more >> trite and banal than average to be honest). But it seems a bummer that she >> is just living her life, gets blindsided by Trump and Billy B, and then gets >> thrown under the bus by some pedantic copy editor. But maybe I am >> overlooking something? >> >> >> -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
