The short take: NBC's Bob Dotson is publishing a book. NBC is helping publicize it. An article on Today.com publishes the original video segment and an excerpt from the book, which is apparently the text from the video segment, closely followed but heavily reworded. The video segment is obviously archival, not recent. It's from...hmm. Doesn't say.
I'm noticing these days that "Journalism 101" violations are getting much more common...again and again I have to go fill in one or more of the "Five W's" by myself. (I was reading an article about a racetrack called "Riverside" in a car magazine recently, and nowhere did it mention where Riverside is. California, turns out. I didn't know.)
You know what they say..."oh well." Just so you know, the original air date of the video segment was October 30th, 1979. I think any article including it should have mentioned that.
I've seen the video segment before several times over the years. I never thought much of it back in the day. It doesn't offer any insight into the picture or discuss what Florence thought of it. It neglects to show the famous picture in its entirety (just a zoom-crop, and the same with several outtakes) and it doesn't even mention Dorothea Lange. The reworded article remedies that, at least.
Very oddly, though, the article/book also rewords the quotes, so that they no longer follow what Florence and some of the others actually say in the video piece.
Here's the article:
"Did you ever lose hope?" I asked.
"Nope," she said, snapping off a flower to take a sniff. "If I'd'a lost hope, this country never would have made it."
In the video, there's no flower, no sniff. And what she says is:
"No. If I'd ever left hope, I'd never [a'] made it."
(I can't quite tell if it's "I'd never a' made it"—i.e., I'd never have made it, with that "have" elided to almost nothing—or "I'd never made it." In any event, nothing about "this country." Not an accurate quote either way.)
You know what they say...about grains of salt, this time.
Mike
(Thanks to Hans Giersberg and several other readers)
Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
A book of interest today:
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Mike Plews: "Three hours ago I was looking at a 1965 vintage print of Migrant Mother, Nipomo, California, 1936, at a show at the Sheldon Museum in Lincoln, Nebraska. The Sheldon has been acquiring photography for quite some time and this exhibit consists of 110 selections from the collection. It was quite a show with work ranging from a Fox Talbot Calotype to some contemporary work on big sheets of aluminum. I never expected to see vintage prints from Ralph Steiner, O. Winston Link, and Robert Mappelthorpe in the same room. It made me a little dizzy. It was a real pleasure to look at such a variety of visions and methods. Nothing equals actually getting close to original prints. The show runs through the end of April. Highly recommended. The book
is also rather nice. Good reproductions in the book but tough to be objective with the originals still so fresh in my mind. Finished it off with a slice of prime at Misty's with Mrs. Plews and had a nice, relaxed, rainy afternoon drive back to Iowa."
John Camp: "When you change language, you change the reader's apprehension of the interviewee's status and personality. Most people use language in a way that's as distinct as a fingerprint. As a journalist, though, I'd sometimes have to change quotes. If a politician said, 'Well, what we were trying to do, uh, John? Is that right? ...trying to get enough bond money passed to fix the gd'd runway before any more planes, you know, crashed or whatever.' I'd change that to, 'What we were trying to do is get enough bond money passed to fixed the runway before any more planes crashed.' Every reporter does this—you elide certain words and phrases in the interest of making the quote understandable. Though sometimes you wouldn't—and in those cases, you were usually mocking the interviewee, which is worse than not changing it. But for other interviewees, you leave the language alone, and this seems to me one of those cases where you do that. But they not only didn't leave it alone, they changed it.
"Actually, I've seen a couple interviews with this woman, and I have to say...she didn't seem to have much to contribute. It seemed to me like she didn't understand what had happened to her, what came afterwards, or even what the photo meant to a lot of people. Like, if you'd interviewed the fat guy jumping over the puddle, in C.-B.'s famous shot, what would he have to contribute? It's the shot that's important, not the jump or the guy. But I could be wrong."
Mike replies: But you do agree that changing "I would never have made it" to "this country never would have made it" is well out of bounds, right? The text and video offers other examples for closer reading if anyone is interested. Makes me wonder what people who only read the book are getting, vs. what they think they're getting.
Hugh Crawford: "Any time anyone edits something it gets further away from the truth, except for the times that it doesn't. I have been interviewed on a few occasions and many times I get asked more or less the same questions and I give more or less the same answers. I'm sure that Florence Thompson has been interviewed a few times and I am sure that the questions and answers were pretty similar but not the same each time, and there is nothing to indicate that the the video is the same exchange as recorded in the text.
"Not only that, but the standard way of filming an interview with one camera is to set up one camera angle, do the interview, set up another angle and do a lot of the questions and answers a second or third time, then edit it together into one composite. Often the second or third versions in the same interview are a little different.
"As far as print journalism goes, successive edits for length style and clarity by persons not familiar with the subject can mangle meaning.
"Still, The Today story is a mess and the bit about the flower is the least of it. The author says, 'I found a trailer camp on the site of the old migrant camp in Modesto, California,' but the migrant camp was actually in Nipomo, 250 miles away on the coast. I grew up 20 miles from Modesto and it is not near the coast. Boston and Manhattan are closer than Modesto and Nipomo.
"The Today caption starts, 'Florence Thompson was a widowed migrant worker,' but both Dorothea Lange and Florence Thompson's account mention her husband.
"Dorothea Lange recorded them as being migrant workers in the parking lot of a pea pickers camp, and the newspapers shortened that to them being pea pickers (logical enough right?) when in fact they were beet pickers whose car had broken down near the parking lot and her husband and sons went to get repairs.
"We grew beets on our farm near Modesto in the '60s, and you don't pick beets, you dig them out of the ground with a machete with a spike on the end.
"Yet another inadvertent screw-up.
"When the Paulo Pellgrin botched caption brouhaha was boiling over, I was thinking of the Dorothea Lange / Florence Thompson caption mess.
"Incidentally, Florence Thompson died in 1986, and had complained in 1983 about never getting any money for the picture. And she was ashamed of it. It's more complicated than that and if I made it simple and clear it would not be the truth. Read this, it's a good start."
Jock Elliott: "Once upon a time there existed in our universe wondrous creatures called editors and fact checkers. Editors make sure that essential information is included—like Riverside is in California—and fact checkers make sure that the facts in the story are right. I wonder where they went? In my experience as a writer, I found that most people—with the possible exception of politicians on the stump—do not speak in smooth sentences that are easily quotable. As a result, eliding quotes is common, and I find that most interviewees appreciate having that done. But—and this is standard procedure for me—I usually run the final quotes by the subject of the interview to make sure the quotes accurately reflect the conversation."
There is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the US...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/07/31/364678/-Fox-News-wins-in-court
Posted by: Stan B. | Saturday, 09 March 2013 at 12:31 PM
That misquotation is appalling … and either unintentional (which is bad journalism) or intentional (which is reprehensible).
Posted by: David Miller | Saturday, 09 March 2013 at 12:32 PM
Now that, is global warming!
Posted by: Natalie Drest | Saturday, 09 March 2013 at 12:35 PM
Ouch.
Nice catch. As ever, small changes with big impact. Perhaps it was ever so, but now the simplicity of spreading information, and the traditional trust of media outlets, are perhaps leading is down a path of easier manipulation.
Posted by: Stephen McCullough | Saturday, 09 March 2013 at 12:52 PM
Unfortunately, true craftsmanship seems to disappearing from America and perhaps other countries as well.
The evening news, in many instances, has become an assault on our language and crucial parts of the story are often omitted.
There are still those striving for excellence and we should appreciate them even more!
Posted by: Jeff | Saturday, 09 March 2013 at 01:23 PM
And people say that Television is a medium for the education of the masses. Clearly not.
Posted by: Walter Glover | Saturday, 09 March 2013 at 02:29 PM
So.....are you recommending this? Or not?
Posted by: Richard | Saturday, 09 March 2013 at 04:22 PM
Well done, Mike.
What passes as "journalism" on network television and radio in the 2000's and beyond is nothing more than propaganda. Our corporate media is just next generation Pravda.
All major media outlets are owned by big corporations, and big corporations are owned by those invested in America's current state of income inequality, corporate meddling in elections, perpetual war and all of its other tumors.
"Journalists" like Brian Williams are so enamored with their own celebrity and their "access" to politicians that they are simply mouthpieces for current storyline their overlords would like us to swallow.
Posted by: Craig C. | Saturday, 09 March 2013 at 04:31 PM
Paulo Pellgrin school of journalism?
Posted by: Ray K | Saturday, 09 March 2013 at 05:16 PM
Say, Mike, you've been out of school for a while, haven't you? You obviously haven't heard that in J-school these days, students are told they can replace any one of the "Five W's" with "oh Well."
Seriously, it's been a bad few days for the mainstream media. This week we were told that Bradley Manning, the man who eventually brought "Collateral Murder" to the world's attention, was initially shunned by the Washington Post and the New York Times. A generation ago, these same newspapers took the Pentagon Papers from Daniel Ellsberg and ran with it.
But Rome did not fall in a day. We had plenty of warning signs with Judith Miller and Jayson Blair. And yet the NYT is still the fancy pants' fish wrap of choice. Oh well.
Posted by: Cub Reporter | Saturday, 09 March 2013 at 06:54 PM
Freedom of the press belongs to those who have one.
Quality of the press is a whole other thing....
Posted by: ShadowFixer | Saturday, 09 March 2013 at 07:12 PM
I am sorry to say that the misquote is not at all surprising to me. Sort of seems about what I would expect and relatively minor to some press/interview experiences I had, or saw around 25 years ago.
As I wrote earlier about journalism, the big difference now is that people have an opportunity to call the press out. We never could fully believe what we heard on the news, and I doubt that suddenly these here young reporters ain't as trustworthy as they were back in the old days when we had real reporters.
Of course, I am sure NBC and Dotson, if they ever had to respond, would claim this is all much ado about nothing. Here, nothing has changed. We stand by our story. (Until there is no other choice.)
Posted by: D. Hufford. | Saturday, 09 March 2013 at 07:14 PM
By the way, you know that the negatives for "Migrant Mother" and all of the FSA photographers pictures that they made while employees of the U.S. are U.S. Gum'mint property and live at the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. For a modest fee, they will print you a copy of your very own. I've got one and feel like it is my own piece of American history.
Ben
Posted by: Benjamin Marks | Saturday, 09 March 2013 at 07:29 PM
Yes, one wrong turn deserves another! :) Lange practiced "artistic" license with her initial edit of the shot :
http://blog.corbis.com/2011/florence-thompson-missing-thumb/
and now Dotson adds an "artistic" flower to sustain the beauty of Florence, which she clearly doesn't need, the beauty! in the 'look of her eyes' hasn't changed !
For 'the rest of the story' :
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/art_MICHAEL_STONES_001.php
cheers!
Posted by: DenCoyle | Saturday, 09 March 2013 at 08:28 PM
Well, since we're on the subject,
"the article/book also rewords the quotes…"
should be written:
"the article/book also rewords the quotations…".
'Quotes' is a verb, in that she was quoted. What she said is a quotation. Yes, informal usage often misses the distinction, but I'm a big fan of opportunistic pedantry.
["People have been using the noun quote as a truncation of quotation for over 100 years, and its use in less formal contexts is widespread today. Language critics have objected to this usage, however, as unduly journalistic or breezy. As such, it is best avoided in more formal situations. The Usage Panel, at least, shows more tolerance for the word as the informality of the situation increases."
That's from the "Usage Note" under the definition of "Quote" in the American Heritage English Dictionary's eReference 2.
So while I take your point and thank you for making it, I'll probably live with it. --Mike]
Posted by: Matthew | Saturday, 09 March 2013 at 08:29 PM
My absolute favorite book about Lange is Daring to Look...definitely worth a few hours if you are interested in her work. The price has dropped since I bought it...for those of you who pick it up, enjoy!
http://www.amazon.com/Daring-Look-Dorothea-Photographs-Reports/dp/0226769852/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1362889167&sr=8-1&keywords=Daring+to+look
Posted by: Matt | Saturday, 09 March 2013 at 11:25 PM
I watch the government-owned, and therefore people-owned, ABC news down here in Australia.
Now, I know what a lot people will immediately think: it's going to be nothing more than a mouthpiece spewing propaganda for whomever is in power. That's not how it works; many times have the ABC and the government clashed. There's no ads, or private interests, either.
What ends up happening is that everyone keeps their respective boots so far up the ABC's...er, rear exit, because we all have a stake in it.
And that's how it should work for all news outlets, public or private. But, of course, we allow corporate news structures to have a free pass, because business, and if it works for them, we shouldn't get angry if we don't like it. It's a business, and we should be grateful they're doing so well at it, even if the effects upon us are negative. Long as it sells.
And that's the origin of this misquote. Someone thought, well, that'll get more people interested, and it's ok, because selling more books is good. Ends justify the means.
Journalism is a dying field; what's replacing it is the murkier field of "media".
Posted by: lith | Saturday, 09 March 2013 at 11:42 PM
Oh wait, it gets even more complicated.
I sort of remember this from grad school
Florence Thompson was a widow , but she was not married to the father of her child in the picture. She was Cherokee ( grand daughter of Ned Christie according to her grandson! ) http://www.weedpatchcamp.com/Migrant%20Mother/MMother.htm
but Roy Striker didn't want pictures of Native Americans. The father of the children is identified as a native Californian by Lang because Californians were freaking out about Oklahomans , the undesirable migrants of the day, but the (dead) father was from Mississippi.
Plus there is confusion about whether she had sold her tires , or sold her tent, or according to another interview , cooked dinner. http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/movies/thompson_water_06.html
a good article here
http://www.journalofamericanhistory.org/projects/americanfaces/msandweiss.html
Oh, and to keep this all up to date with the photoshop era, Doreatha Lang retouched a thumb out of the photo !
http://www.shorpy.com/migrant-mother
https://imagespublicdomain.wordpress.com/tag/migrant-grandson/
Back to the present or at least 1983-1986 , the writer seems to be simultaneously in Florence Thompson's kitchen interviewing her and at the reunion in the park that she declined to attend where a photographer is quoted
“Move in a little closer,” said the photographer. He slipped a black plate into the back of his camera, as relatives ten rows deep wedged themselves between swing sets and seesaws.
How did he get that quote ? I'll leave nitpicking about "black plates" in rollfilm cameras to the same nuts who freak out about writers confusing ammunition clips and magazines.
If you want to go further down this rabbit hole, here is a good place to start
http://bit.ly/YkStaA
Posted by: Hugh Crawford | Sunday, 10 March 2013 at 05:10 AM
Perfectly summed up is Joe Santa's contribution from the Corbis blog:
"Today, in the age of digital tomfoolery, we can only hope for truth in media. But we only know what they’re willing to share.
Makes you wonder what else is in the garbage."
Posted by: m3photo | Sunday, 10 March 2013 at 08:29 AM
With regards to 'when is a "quote" not',,,not an authority of the statement " betwixt " : http://thesunmagazine.org/about/announcements/2013/52
Posted by: DenCoyle | Sunday, 10 March 2013 at 01:02 PM
Journalism meets Photoshop ( re quote altering).
Posted by: Slobodan Blagojevic | Sunday, 10 March 2013 at 01:41 PM
Changing what was said is dishonest, reprehensible and should result in the firing of the writer from any job he may have that involves the written word.
A misquote is one thing, adding 'facts' is lying and is deliberately done.
Posted by: Daniel Smith | Sunday, 10 March 2013 at 02:16 PM
Seems to me your respondents are on the whole letting the "journalist" off too easy. The mangled quotes are an offense to honest journalism. Even worse (in my opinion) is the offense done to Lange's photo by Sanna Dunnaway in "colorizing" the image.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/sannadullaway/works/9326402-colorized-migrant-mother-by-dorothea-lange?p=photographic-print
Posted by: James Rhem | Sunday, 10 March 2013 at 02:29 PM
Dear James,
Not to worry. I thoroughly roasted the historical colorizations back in October:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/10/ohmyeffingod.html
pax / Ctein
Posted by: ctein | Monday, 11 March 2013 at 01:31 AM
When I read about a journalist and artistic license, I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Frank Lloyd Wright: "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters."
Posted by: Bob Cook | Monday, 11 March 2013 at 09:10 AM