Journalists have misquoted people for so long - and quoted them out of context that for many people like to have their words on record.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
It's a problem sometimes when you speak to journalists. They quote you, and then they read what they wrote, and then they even explain it. It's dangerous.
The biggest problem I have in journalism is being quoted or misquoted and then being asked to defend something I haven't said.
I've been really upset sometimes when I've been misquoted. And it's the one thing they use in big print. Or it's taken out of context. Thoughts are fluid and words are sticky. That's the thing.
You shouldn't presume that all quotes that are in a magazine or a newspaper are accurate.
Journalists write because they have nothing to say, and have something to say because they write.
Keep in mind that when public figures get in trouble for something they said, it is usually not because they misspoke, but because they accidentally told the truth.
A common criticism of establishment journalists entails comparing them to stenographers, on the ground that most of them do little more than mindlessly write down and uncritically repeat what government officials say.
There are a lot of editorials that have nothing to do with anything like that. But I was just thinking of that sense of prose as being very responsible and perceptive, thoughtful, intimate, and contriving a quote statement.
Quotations are useful in periods of ignorance or obscurantist beliefs.
I don't even like being quoted in a press release.
No opposing quotes found.