Some reporters are inclined to overwork the direct-quotation method because it is usually the easiest way of telling the story, often relieving the writer of the necessity of thinking for himself. Quotation marks may enclose a multitude of rhetorical sins. Rather than go to the trouble of coordinating his facts, such a writer will lazily string together the statements of several persons and let it go at that. This plan is obviously bad. It violates the fundamental rules of news writing, which demand that a story be clear, concise and forceful, and gives the reader a confused image rather than the definite, clear-cut impression left by the story rightly told.
It is absurd to lug into a story the views of persons who have no vital connection with it, simply for the sake of filling space. And yet that is the error committed by some news writers, as in a fire story, for example, where the janitor is quoted as saying, “Yes, I saw the fire; it was a great sight,” or something else equally trivial. When the janitor sees that he immediately gets an exaggerated idea of his own importance. It is conceivable that the next time a reporter asks him for a bit of information, the janitor will throw out his chest with the air of a personage and reply, “I refuse to make a statement for publication,” hoping that the newspaper will quote him to that effect.
The news writer who is prodigal with his direct quotation is encouraging an attitude of mind that will cause trouble for him and other newspaper men in the future. If a person is asked to give information about a story and refuses, it is seldom good policy to state that fact, unless he bears such a close relation to the story that his silence is of interest. If there is no particular reason why the opinion of Smith, the janitor, should be sought, don’t commit the folly of telling several thousand readers--and Smith--that he “refused to talk for publication.”
Another absurdity is illustrated in the sentence: “Smith refused to make a statement, but said ...” This paradoxical introduction may be followed by a long interview with Smith. What the writer probably means is that Smith, when first asked for a statement, said that he wouldn’t talk, but later changed his mind. The reader is not likely to be interested in all this, so the copy reader cuts it down to “Smith said.”