We once cut an expert quote from a piece despite it being factually accurate, because the specific framing the expert chose, while technically true, created a misleading overall impression when read in isolation from context the expert had also provided but that didn't fit cleanly into a short quote.
Why technical accuracy isn't always sufficient
A quote can state a true fact while omitting context that substantially changes how a reader should interpret it - a distinction between lying and misleading that matters for editorial judgment even though only one of the two involves a factual error we could point to directly.
How we identified the problem
The expert's fuller conversation included important qualifying context that didn't fit within a quotable sentence length, and extracting just the quotable portion, while accurate to what was said, would have represented their overall view less faithfully than the full conversation supported.
What we did instead
We either paraphrased the fuller context surrounding the quote, or in some cases simply didn't use a headline-quality quote at all when doing so would have required stripping away context essential to an accurate reading. A less punchy piece is a reasonable cost for a more honest one.
Why this distinction matters for how we handle sourcing generally
Editorial responsibility extends beyond verifying that a quote is accurately transcribed to also considering whether extracting it, in isolation, would represent the source's actual view fairly. This is a harder and more subjective judgment than simple fact-checking, but we think it's part of the job.