This was in a Globe and Mail article written by Andre Picard in 2006. The article, which was in English, was drawn from press conference in French. Mr Picard put words in my mouth that I didn’t say and would never say, and also borrowed some out-of-context words from a letter I’d had published in the G & M and tacked those on, all in quotation marks.

He made numerous other factual errors (e.g., he reported that I was fired–information he did not get from me). On the other hand, he reported the science (this was the AAAS Raven data) competently.

I’ve also had words put in my mouth in other media stories, but the Globe and Mail’s misreporting was extreme. I’ve also had wording changed within letters to the editor to the point where I could barely recognize the writing attributed to me.

But if it’s a paraphrase, then what you’re getting is the reporter’s best understanding or interpretation of what what was said, or a summary of it. A paraphrase will not have quotes around it.

Even when a reporter is recording things precisely, they may not always quote precisely throughout–depending on the publication’s usual style, they may want a mix of paraphrasing, summarizing, and quotes. Plus, background information that they might have gathered from other sources or from observation.

I assume that what a person is recorded as having said in an interview is what they actually said.