• MeepsTheBard@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s what the [sic] is for. It’s showing “here’s what the person literally said, to make sure we’re not misquoting them.”

      It’s standard practice, as “stepping up and taking charge” would mean substituting someone else’s words for your own, which is a slippery slope. “Oh he said X, but meant Y, so I’ll write that instead” can very easily be abused by people actively looking to misrepresent other’s words.

      Source: BA Journalism, who had to use [sic] when quoting non-native English speakers (was part of an immigration story). Whenever possible, I’d try to clarify/ correct mid-interview: “oh, you said A, but I think you might’ve meant B. Is that correct?” That way, you know for a fact it’s still their words.

    • 520@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem is, if you’re quoting someone or something, it is considered very unprofessional to make even the slightest changes, even correcting typos in written materials. That’s what the [sic] is for, to denote that this is literally how it’s written in the source.

        • 520@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The fact it comes from urban dictionary is immaterial. It could come from a Facebook post, a presidential press conference or a YouTube comment and the rules are the same. Journalistic codes of conduct don’t discriminate between sources when it comes to the handling of quotes.

          The fact is, when you’re quoting something, anything, taking such liberties with the quote, even for seemingly innocuous/well-intentioned reasons, is a professional minefield no journalistic publication is going to want to touch.