.jpg)
When it comes to being quoted in the newspaper, there are many versions of what you said: what you actually said, what you think you said, what you meant, what you would have said if you had had more time to think about it, what the reporter heard, what the reporter thinks you said, and what the reporter wishes you had said.
Some newspaper reporters use recording devices for interviews. I don't know how much that has changed in the years since I was a reporter, but most reporters who have been at it a while don't like them. They don't have the time to go back to some quiet place and patiently transcribe you word for word. They scribble the best sentences (in terrible shorthand) in their notebooks, then endeavor to reconstruct your quotes when they are actually writing the piece. It's a skill that you get better at with experience.
The truth is, 9 times out of 10, if they transcribed you exactly as you said it, you would probably sound stupid. Most people do not realize how many incorrect words, pauses, and bad phrases they use when they talk. As a reporter, I would frequently "clean up a person's quote" so they didn't sound idiotic.
Example, of what you really said:
"People don't get that we don't always mean to give them the wrong information. I mean, it's difficult sometimes with all that's going on, saying the right thing and the public getting the message wrong."
What my article would say you said:
"We don't mean to give the public the wrong information," he said. "Sometimes, it's difficult with everything going on to put out a clear message."
Yeah, send me a thank you note for that one, buddy.
In journalism school, we argued a lot about whether this was ethical. Clearly, I felt pretty comfortable making people sound more intelligent. Plus, it made my story readable. Occasionally, if I thought someone was an ass, I'd put his or her quote in verbatim and let their inability to speak come through in the article.
If you want to be quoted very exactly, you have some options. You can ask a reporter to submit his or her questions to you in an email. Doing this ensures that you have a record of exactly what you said. Some reporters are OK with this method, and others hate it. They'd rather have a face to face conversation. You might try a hybrid of this method if you're being interviewed for an article about you. Ask the reporter to send you a list of questions beforehand, write back answers, and then sit down for a face-to-face to fill in the blanks. Most celebrities do it this way (sometimes with the face-to-face first, then emails afterwards).
You can record the interview yourself. Many mobile phones now have the capability to record a conversation, either on a phone call or simply as a tape recorder when you're standing in frnt of someone. If you are recording a phone conversation, be sure to tell them that you are recording it. I think that's a law in a lot of states. I don't advise making comments to reporters by text message.
In some cases, if you know that the reporter is going to use a specific quote in an article, you might ask if you can review that one quote that he/she plans to use in an article. Reporters will almost never run an entire story by you for your input (it's a pride thing), but one quote is usually not a problem. I would sometimes do this with sources that I spoke to frequently. It helped to build trust. But, if I didn't like the person, I would never allow it.
Until you know a reporter, hold back and talk less. A student reporter who is new to this will try to scribble down every last word you said. That's really annoying. You're trying to have a conversation and they are slowly transcribing the sentence you said 2 minutes ago and asking you to repeat it. (Ugh!)
Speak in shorter sentences, get to the point, and don't go into lengthy explanations. Keep it simple, and there's less chance for it to be screwed up.
