most people don't talk that way

I was looking for an obituary of Studs Terkel when I came across this discussion with him on the ethics of extended quotation in interviews, something relevant to his business. There’s a lot recognizable here to people who have done interviews, and people who’ve just read interviews will get a lot out of reading this one. Tease:

After more than 20 years as a Chicago broadcasting personality, on early TV (from which he was quickly blacklisted) and particularly on radio station WFMT, Terkel reinvented himself at age 54 with the publication in 1967 of Division Street America, the first in a series of oral histories with short titles and big subjects: Working, Race, “The Good War” . . . These books consist of tape-recorded conversations with mostly common people; after a brief introduction from Terkel, each text unspools almost seamlessly, with only an occasional nudge from the questioner. The people speak clearly, coherently, and sometimes in the shape of a true story, with a conflict and a climax and a moment of truth.

But here’s the thing: most people don’t talk that way.

Comments

[Iain Coleman]

I don't see what the big deal is. I talked to journalists a lot in my time as an executive councillor, and I was always happy when they turned "Well, I believe this new recycling system will increase our recycling rate and, you know, people will find it not too difficult to use and, I mean, you know the Labour opposition, they don't have a credible policy and if you look at the last few budget debates they've, they've always voted to cut recycling" into "The new recycling system will boost our recycling rate, and people won't find it difficult to use. Labour have always voted to cut recycling - they don't have a credible policy". I guess in principle one might worry about a journalist distorting ones meaning, but in practice it never happened to me.