The debate on how far journalists should go (or not go) to preserve the words of a source that is directly quoted remains as exciting as ever.

In the latest of the perennial series, an African-American author complained on an American Cable TV that it was inherently racist that a wire service had transcribed President Obama's speech without cleaning it up as other outlets had done.

The Associated Press (AP) and the reporter who did the transcript defended themselves on the grounds that not cleaning up Obama’s words was in fact truer to the President’s meaning.

AP and most major news organisations have a section on quotations in their stylebooks.

Generally, there appears to be agreement that extraneous syllables such as “um” and “ahem”, which add or substract little from the substance of a statement, can be removed there is divergence on the notion of cleaning up quotes for grammar and style.

For instance, the last time I checked, The Guardian (U.K) had the following guideline: “Take care with direct speech: our readers should be confident that words appearing in quotation marks accurately represent the actual words uttered by the speaker, though ums and ahems can be removed and bad grammar improved. If you aren’t sure of the exact wording, use indirect speech.”

The New York Times, on the other hand, maintains a more rigid approach. “Readers have a right to assume that every word between quotation marks is what the speaker or writer said. The Times does not ‘clean up’ quotations. If a subject’s grammar or taste is unsuitable, quotation marks should be removed and the awkward passage paraphrased.”

However, The Times also acknowledges that extraneous syllables and false starts should be omitted or deleted.

The Associated Press also has a puritanical approach to quotations.

AP’s stylebook says, “Never alter quotations even to correct minor grammatical errors or word usage. Casual minor tongue slips may be removed by using ellipses but even that should be done with extreme caution.”

AP discourages substandard spellings or informal pronunciations used by certain dialects (gonna for going to, wanna for want to or waitin’ for waiting) except when they are used to convey a certain touch in a feature.

The New York Times urges caution and warns that the use of such spellings could strike some readers as patronizing.

I have failed to find any sufficient guidelines on quotations in East Africa.

Here are my own guidelines, which have evolved over the years.

• Take extensive notes or record all interviews so that you are sure the speaker actually used the words you are attributing to him/her.

• When in doubt err on the side of caution; use ellipses to indicate you have removed/omitted some words.

• If you have to use a speaker’s glaring grammatical errors, perhaps follow the word, clause or sentence with “sic” to indicate you recognise the problem but have simply reproduced the original. If you use sic however, you should be consistent. Don’t use it for one speaker and clean up the quotation for another speaker.

• If you must do any cleaning up, let it be minor and only for the sake of the smooth flow of a story or for consistency.

On cleaning up, take this quotation from John Nagenda, the Senior Presidential Adviser on Media and Public Relations (and I can’t vouch for its accuracy): “I have always found Cabinet very supine, very weak in the face of a strong move by the President whether this is because they are weak and run in fear of the President, that I don’t know.”

Assuming I had rewritten it another way.

“I have always found Cabinet very supine, very weak in the face of a strong move by the President.

Whether this is because they are weak and run in fear of the President, I don’t know.”

I have done two things here. I have made it two sentences, and I have removed that towards the end of the last sentence.

I think this change makes for easier reading without changing the substance of Nagenda’s comment.

Obviously if I had listened to the original interview, I would have been more certain whether Nagenda had expressed his thought in one or two sentences. But I don’t think this is fundamental.

But suppose I changed Nagenda’s other comment: “I don’t think he has remained exactly the same, though, in fact, I would say that he is more autocratic than he was when he first came” to “He is autocratic” or “He is just an autocrat (as Sunday Monitor’s first headline said)? That would be a distortion.

• Use dialects on special occasions where it’s important for context.

It would be appropriate to use “gonna” if you’re writing a feature piece about the accents and speech of some Ugandans who return from Europe or North America.

About the Author: Dr. Peter Mwesige is Executive Director of the African Centre for Media Excellence (ACME). He has chaired the department of journalism and communication at Makerere University and is a former Executive Editor of the Monitor in Kampala.