I suppose this is the least of their problems.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Thu May 27, 2004 4:21 pm

On May 18 Sun-Times reporter Lucio Guerrero produced a story on user reaction to the new CTA test cars -- the ones lined on each side by a single row of seats facing inward. Guerrero wrote: "'I love the new layout,' said Tony Coppoletta, 25, who rode one of the two test cars being used on the Brown Line. 'I found that from the seats you actually have a nicer view of the city than when you're facing in the direction of the train, because you're not just looking at a specific forward angle, but getting a more panoramic view of the city.'" Coppoletta went on to praise the cars' new straps in considerable detail.
There's nothing to object to in this passage except the word "said." Guerrero found Coppoletta's comments, and those of someone else he quoted in the article, on the Web's "chicagotransit" discussion board. He contacted both chicagotransit regulars, verified the quotes, and got permission to repeat them. But they hadn't been said -- not to him. They'd been posted.
"It's your call, but seems nitpicky . . ." Guerrero told me -- e-mailed me, rather. "Because I wasn't standing next to them on the train, in my estimation, is not relevant." (Michael Miner in the Chicago Reader)<p>***Yes, it is.***

TheWalrus · **Posted:** Fri May 28, 2004 1:07 am

Absolutely. I bug reporters all the time about quotes that read like e-mails. If he wrote it in an e-mail, he didn't say it.<p>One reporter used an exclamation point at the end of a "said" quote, and I thought for sure that she had lifted it from an e-mail. Nope, she was conveying her source's mood when he spoke (exclaimed). I promptly deleted the exclamation point. It felt good(!).

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Fri May 28, 2004 8:49 am

Not nitpicky at all. "Said" leads readers to think it was actually said to the reporter.<p>Talk about lazy reporting. Christ.

Mike Billings · **Posted:** Fri May 28, 2004 1:11 pm

The "said" is not the problem here, because it was verified that the person said it. But it needs to be added when and where the person said these things -- in this case, on a posting board.
If the person said it or wrote it is not the problem with the story. The problem is that the reporter tried to pass the quotes off as being said (written, whatever) to him.
If the reporter called the people quoted to verify the quotes from the posting board were theirs, why didn't he just get fresh quotes at that time?
I think the reporter might have had a dilemma: to have interesting quotes from a posting board, which readers may find as a strange place to seek information, or have boring run-of-the-mill quotes from the people after he talked to them on the telephone. The reporter's escape was to write the story so that the interesting quotes from the board seemed as though they were from his conversations with the people.
I find this a serious misrepresentation. No wonder the public thinks the news is unreliable.

Testy Copy Editors

I suppose this is the least of their problems.

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links