| sinha said: It's the reporter adding a word that s/he thinks will clarify what Stringer is saying, but doing so carelessly and actually making it far more confusing than it would have been if s/he had left it out entirely and just reproduced the quote exactly as Stringer said it.
Correct, however in this case the reporter screwed up because adding the word changed the meaning of the exact quote. We have two things here, Stringer's direct quote, and the reporter's interpretation, which changes the meaning of that quote. I'll go with Stringers exact words over some Reuter reporter's interpretation of what it means. |
So you do agree that this is a common practice in journalism, yet conveniently, in this care, you will choose to say that the journalist made an error.
How logic and unbiased of you.
