[d_r]

FWIW, if you're interested in how misquotes happen, I highly recommend grabbing "Words that Work" by Frank Luntz [1]. Luntz analyzes extensively how companies and politicians we know regularly get misquoted/misinterpreted due to an unfortunate/awkward choice of words, negligence of the transcribers, etc, etc.

This book has also opened my eyes to the importance of copywriting and clear communication. Each sentence you form to an audience or a customer must be reframed from the point of view of the potential listener, and not from what you think you are saying.

(Not to say that the reporter(s) weren't being negligent here, of course.)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz

[blub]

Was this book useful to you in practice? Found compelling (if few) negative reviews on Amazon.

[d_r]

To me, absolutely, but it depends on your interest area and expertise/writing level. I would say that this book would be more valuable to an entrepreneur who actively communicates with customers or investors, or performs marketing activities. It is less relevant to, say, someone who is interested in politics. It has plenty of examples of crafty word twisting from politicians, but it is not a book about politics, which I think disappointed some of those Amazon reviewers.

I am a fairly beginning app developer and wanted to learn more about copywriting and communication. After reading this book I looked over my past e-mails to customers and realized that my sentences were either outright confusing or communicated that my software is buggy.

One take on the message: you must understand your audience well enough to adjust your words to the most common denominator. Otherwise, people will misunderstand your message and it will confuse or backfire.

[blub]

Thanks, there is some discount for Kindle, got it just for 3$.

[d_r]

Cool, hope it is useful. Be sure to not skip the long "Introduction" chapter, too.

[davidhansen]

Not to say that the reporter(s) weren't being negligent here, of course.

The quote, as reported, is so wildly divergent from the actual quote, that I wonder how you can think the reporter was "negligent", as opposed to "intentionally just making shit up for the purposes of creating controversy".

This wasn't a case of one or two words out of place. I count 3 substitutions, 2 transpositions, 11 deletions, and 5 additions. In one sentence. That is not "negligence", no matter how many books written by yellow journalism apologists exist.

[chc]

Let me give you a perfectly plausible transcription of the real quote, which is not at all dissimilar to actual reporters' notes I've seen:

> weth lik ON u wl ↑ that plat + mb even 1st

It doesn't make such a wide disparity excusable, but I've known enough reporters to have plenty of reason to believe it was negligence. Many reporters overestimate their ability to read their own notes later, much like programmers overestimate their ability to figure out WTF that clever bit of code is doing six months from now.

[potatolicious]

This is a case where someone has recorded the entire exchange in publicly accessible video for you!

This isn't the 80s where your chicken-scratches made on the spot are the best you've got. This is an age where we have voice recorders, events are routinely recorded with easy-to-access video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t02iJn5Ypio#t=41m12s

[chc]

Yep, and I would describe failing to go back and check that video as downright — wait for it — negligent.

Like I said, I'm not defending any reporter from any accusation but obvious malice.

[smackfu]

OTOH, if you are going to fabricate stuff, a quote from a major CEO that is in public is not the way to go.

[gldalmaso]

intentionally just making shit up for the purposes of <employers agenda>

To me that describes actual journalism much more precisely than what most people, myself included, perceive that journalism should be.

Even the good journalists have to follow the editorial policy of their employers which is seldom unbiased.