Quoted in a story I never heard of...

Well I guess nothing should suprise me...India is full of suprises.

http://tinyurl.com/4cfva

Cheers,

George

 

First I would ask: Is the quote, though you don't remember giving it to the reporter for the article, essentially accurate nevertheless? I mean, is it something you once either said or wrote, even though not ever to this particular reporter for purposes of this particular article? If so, then perhaps it was taken from a previous work.. maybe even a previous work of that reporter to whom you really did give the quote for an entirely different piece that you no longer rembmer; or from a speech or article you once wrote; or from another article by someone else who properly quoted you; or maybe even from something you've posted here, etc., etc.

Let's assume, for a moment, that it's something you have actually said or written, one way or another, by hook or by crook, and is legitimately attributable to you... even though you don't remember saying it to that reporter for that article; or, worse, let's assume that while it may not bear any resemblance to anything you once said or wrote, it's at least a reasonable paraphrase of something you did. If so, it's important to note that it is not really a quote but, rather, a paraphrase or summary, with attribution. Technically, the "rules" of journalism are not broken by such a thing because it is a restatement of something you have expressed somewhere along the line, but not really a quote thereof.

That having been said, it's terribly poorly done, and is extremely journalistically sloppy, because though it rightly gives you credit for having said it (or, more accurately, approximately it), it doesn't say when, where or under what circumstances you did so. By leaving out that data, yet not putting quotes around it (which quote would have implied that it was a quote obtained from you expressly for the article -- which, because it wasn't, would have really given you something to complain about here), it ends-up being used in a quote-like manner even though it's not really a quote. That's the reporter trying to have it both ways, and in journalism that just doesn't fly. Shame on the copy editor, in this case.

To have used it in the way it was used by the reporter, and to have said use be credible and in the spirit of at least halfway-decent journalism, the reporter could have simply prefaced the attribution with its source, thusly: "In a 1998 speech he gave before the such-and-such society of whatever, Adelaide academic George Brown, who monitors non-traditional operators and "degree mills," said the Internet remained an optimum..." or something like that (i.e., if not that way, then at least by some other means weaved the source into the paragraph).

Of course, if none of the above is true and if the reporter is simply putting words in your mouth, well, then we have a whole different issue, here, which I won't go into other than to say same would be not only journalistically wrong, but ethically, morally and probably legally wrong as well. I have a feeling, though, that it's not that bad... is it? I mean, isn't it at least a reasonably accurate restatement of something you've said, written, been quoted saying, posted here; or otherwise uttered to someone, somehow, somewhere along the line?

Regardless, it's inappropriate, to be sure, and I understand why you're concerned; but it's technically not as bad as if it had quotes around it.

Small comfort, I realize.

 

George, have you heard of this 'university'? And is it really based in Australia?

 

Thanks Des. It doesn't concern me, but I am trying to remember which article the journalist pulled it from. I reckon its an Australian article published in 2002, but I will have to go hunting for it.

As for Berkeley, my understanding is that it is dead...the website has been down for some time now.

Cheers,

George