Transcription, New York, and Editing for Clarity
When does editing for clarity get in the way of political humor? I was in New York not too long ago, thinking about transcription (as usual), and perusing the news. I came across this bit of a verbatim transcript in a column by Gail Collins in the New York Times:
“While we’re reclaiming the even course when it comes to preventing terror attacks, another good step might be for Jeb Bush to say that Hillary Clinton doesn’t deserve to be pilloried any more than his brother. This came up during a Jake Tapper interview on CNN, and Bush’s response was: “Well, I — it’s — the question on then Benghazi, which is — hopefully we’ll now finally get, get the truth to, is, was that — was the place secure? They had a responsibility, the Department of State, to have proper security.”
Happened? Just, huh? What.
Politically speaking: why you might want to get an edited transcript…or not
Depending on how clearly you want a speaker to be understood, or in this case perhaps interpreted, you may want to have your transcripts edited for clarity. If on the other hand you want their true speech patterns and clarity of thinking to be revealed, you may want to go with a verbatim transcript.
Of course there are many other reasons you might choose a verbatim or edited-for-clarity transcript, but we will explore those another time. For now, just enjoy that verbatim quote from a leading political figure.
- Best Practices
- Famous Transcripts
- Local Color
- The Wide World of Transcription
- Tigerfish News
- Transcription Technology
- What is Transcription?