The Importance of Quoting Accurately

The Importance of Quoting Accurately

Quoting accurately is very important, not just for reliability but also to demonstrate respect or deference to the person being quoted. Just consider the two examples given below:

The two quotes are said to be from the same interactive discourse, presumably at the same time, in which Professor Amartya Sen gave his opinion about the Indian Prime Minister, Mr Modi. The quotes, reproduced on December 26th and December 22nd respectively, are:

"One of the things Mr Modi did do is to give people a sense of faith that things can happen.  It may not have been exactly the things that I would have liked but I think this is an achievement. This wouldn't make my differences with Mr Modi on issues like secularism go away but, on the other hand, if we don't recognise it, we're missing out on something very important." (http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/the-biggest-issue-with-this-government-is-social-cohesion/3/)

 “I am critical of Mr Modi but I have to say he has given a sense of faith to people that things can happen. It may not be in exactly the same way that I would have liked to have happened… I think it is quite an achievement. It is a compliment, but our differences on secularism and other things don’t go away,” Sen said.

(See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/modi-has-brought-hope-that-things-can-happen/#sthash.FHvRlRAy.dpuf)

There are differences which can lead to vastly different readings, thus resulting in one arriving at different conclusions or interpretations about Professor Sen's opinion about Mr Modi.

In the first quote, the part about being critical of Mr Modi is left out and this is crucial because, while in the second quote, that would lay emphasis on Prof. Sen's divergent views from Mr Modi's, in the second, it is glossed over. Similarly, in omitting the `quite' to qualify the achievement, the reader is left with the more emphatic version of what Prof. Sen sees as an `achievement'.

The two versions of the quote are deceptive as one is presumably a paraphrase by the journalist who probably thinks he is being smart in rephrasing the comments in what he might view as `better' language. This is dangerous since a misquoted comment can lead to:

1. Discrediting the paper as an unreliable source of information; and
2. Readers drawing the unwarranted conclusions about what was said, which in turn, could affect the stature of the person being quoted.

These are serious, negative outcomes and that is why, it is imperative that when one quotes verbatim, one has to ensure that it is just that, word for word quoting. Not doing so, discredits the writer and the person he is quoting. Moreover, if the writer is writing for, as in this case, a newspaper, the credibility of the newspaper also takes a beating.

On a side note, let me also include that paraphrasing is an important skill that is also a challenging one. When paraphrasing, one needs to be faithful to the actual quote, to ensure that it is not coloured by one's own interpretations, biases and judgements.