"No Thanks, Bernie: Virginia Abortion Rights Advocates Know Better" (Title)

[Rilgin]

63. You can attibute the words to the Times Article and call it a characterisation using quotes NT

The problem is all about your attribution. You can use quotes as long as you make clear you are quoting a characterization not an actual quote. Your original post said "he said" followed by "quoted words" which attributes it as an actual quote. It is a mislabeled attribution. But really the issue on this article is the characterization is totally off based as can be seen by anyone listening to the actual speech.

Leaving aside our main thread and just discussing press reporting and manipulation. The article itself exhibited some problems from a reporting standpoint as can be seen internally looking at it. It characterizes a speech but does not provide an actual quote to support its characterization. But if you look further into the article, it characterizes 5 or 6 other people's reactions and points of view on the Nebraska Event but each time after the characterization it uses an actual quote of the person whose viewpoint is characterized. If you look at the article, you will see what I mean. This is a misleading reporter who probably did not actually listen to the speech or he would have characterized it followed by a quote to support his characterization as he did for each other viewpoint he puts in the story. The reporter in this case did not do so for the speech which means he knew that his characterization was not accurate. His main point was to bring the criticism (using actual quotes) front and center. I am pretty sure that his characterizations of the criticism were correct because of his use of actual quotes.

My hope separate from any political points is you question newspaper characterizations of what someone says unless they actually provide a quote.