Can A Word-for-Word Transcript Be Racist?
One of the most subtle ways print reporters show bias is inconsistency in how sources quotes are handled. It's common practice to "clean up" a quote for publication. No one needs to know all of the pauses and "hrms" that accompanied someone's words. "Gonna" becomes "going to" and "wanna" becomes "want to."
But what do you do if someone mispronounces a word or "drops a g" when they talk about "runnin' for office"? Sometimes you're not even sure if, say, the g was dropped. So you just include it. Other times the dropped 'g" is so obvious and for such dramatic effect that it would be more unethical to include it than leave it out. But most of the time, the question is much muddier and hard to decide.
I remember noting during the 2008 campaign that Barack Obama and Sarah Palin were both likely to "drop a g" while on the campaign trail. Both are effective campaigners who know that speaking like a typical person endears you to an audience. Live audiences tend to be much more receptive to such linguistic maneuvers than print readers are, though.
When their words were written up, only Palin's were transcribed as she spoke them. Reporters typically cleaned up Obama's words for publication. Is this disparity the end of the world? Certainly not, but it's worth considering as you read your newspaper and notice which individuals get the Palin treatment and which individuals get the Obama treatment.
Except now Obama got the Palin treatment and some folks aren't happy. When President Obama spoke to the Congressional Black Caucus last weekend, he gave a very effective speech that included myriad "dropped g's." The Associated Press transcribed it accurately and caught flak from MSNBC:
On MSNBC, the African-American author Karen Hunter complained the news service transcribed Obama's speech without cleaning it up as other outlets did--specifically including the "dropped g's."
Via the AP version:
"Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes," he said, his voice rising as applause and cheers mounted. "Shake it off. Stop complainin'. Stop grumblin'. Stop cryin'. We are going to press on. We have work to do."
Hunter called the AP's version "inherently racist," sparring with New Republic contributing editor and noted linguistics expert John McWhorter, who argued the g-less version "is actually the correct one," noting that the president's victory in the 2008 election was due, in part, to how effortlessly "he can switch into that [black] dialect."
Hunter said she teaches her journalism students to clean up grammar for quotations lest the source come off ignorant.
- Comment (9)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Can A Word-for-Word Transcript Be Racist?
If the "g" isn't there it shouldn't be inserted. Are we to correct grammar too?
Edited on Sep 27, 2011 at 6:55amSep '10
Re: Can A Word-for-Word Transcript Be Racist?
In my non-journalistic opinion the AP's version was an inherently racist version of an inherently racist speech. Obama was saying "get back on the plantation where you black people belong." He was making an appeal based on race, not policy and certainly not results.
Re: Can A Word-for-Word Transcript Be Racist?
tabula rasa: If the "g" isn't there it shouldn't be inserted. Are we to correct grammar too? · Sep 27 at 6:55am
Edited on Sep 27 at 06:55 am
To be honest, reporters do this all the time. If we didn't, it would actually be quite distracting for the reader. A high percentage of sources use incorrect grammar. I used to bristle against the practice of correcting their words but editors beat it out of me.
Jun '10
Re: Can A Word-for-Word Transcript Be Racist?
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
tabula rasa: If the "g" isn't there it shouldn't be inserted. Are we to correct grammar too? · Sep 27 at 6:55am
Edited on Sep 27 at 06:55 am
To be honest, reporters do this all the time. If we didn't, it would actually be quite distracting for the reader. A high percentage of sources use incorrect grammar. I used to bristle against the practice of correcting their words but editors beat it out of me. · Sep 27 at 7:13am
Good points. Here's another take. Obama in most speeches uses standard, correct English. In this speech, he clearly and consciously chose a more informal means of communication. If we don't reflect that in the transcript, it should certainly be noted in news reports (and doing so is not racist).
May '10
Re: Can A Word-for-Word Transcript Be Racist?
Someone needs to show Ms. Hunter a copy of any 2008 news story which quotes Sarah Palin dropping her g's. Calling the AP coverage "racist" is just absurd. Sheesh.
tabula rasa
In this speech, he clearly and consciously chose a more informal means of communication.
Yes, it was so affected and phony that my husband's reaction to it was: (exact quote) "If I ever am nauseated and need to throw up, just show me that clip."
Nov '10
Re: Can A Word-for-Word Transcript Be Racist?
If the speaker is deliberately taking liberties with standard English for rhetorical effect, then it's a part of the story, and you should absolutely report it.
Jun '11
Re: Can A Word-for-Word Transcript Be Racist?
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.:
Hunter said she teaches her journalism students to clean up grammar for quotations lest the source come off ignorant. ·
It appears that Hunter also teaches her journalism students to clean up grammar for quotations lest the source come off as cynical.
But I would wager my house that this cleansing rule applies only to certain sources.
Dec '10
Re: Can A Word-for-Word Transcript Be Racist?
The unspoken rules:
Accordingly, our historic first Islamic apostate president will have to out himself as gay and disavow his Christian faith to remain the leader of the free world.
Mar '11
Re: Can A Word-for-Word Transcript Be Racist?
The bias also apparently extends to the way that cameras are used in debates. I didn't notice first-hand but it was mentioned to me (maybe by RLong) that the main channels used very different camera angles and cutaways for Obama/Biden than for McCain/Palin. Be interesting to watch this go round.