Here's one way that reporters lose the trust of the public: You interviewed a citizen, someone named Judy Chang. She said this to you, and you taped it:
"I think the cement plant is a bad thing, well, not a bad thing exactly, but you know, like, it's going to -- You know, with the smoke and all, and the water. It's going to -- I'm afraid it would mess up, it would pollute the -- The dust is going to -- People with allergies. They're going to suffer, you know? And the water will be -- They'll dump stuff in the water."
In your story, you write this:
Judy Chang, a resident of Newberry, said, "The cement plant is bad. It will hurt people with allergies, and they'll pollute the water."
Chang did not say any of that. A reporter who would write that is an outright liar. Reporting and journalism are about what's true, not some verbal version of interpretive dance.
Of course, you need to edit Chang's quote. We do write differently than we speak, and reporters typically "clean up" the quotes they hear. Here is an honest version:
Judy Chang, a resident of Newberry, said she wasn't sure the plant is all bad, but she said, "People with allergies are going to suffer" from the dust. She also expressed concern about polluting the water.
That is accurate. It doesn't put new words into Chang's mouth, and it doesn't change the sequence of what she said. Most important, it doesn't change the meaning of what she said!
Compare:
(a) "The dust is going to -- People with allergies. They're going to suffer, you know?"
> What Chang said.
(b) "People with allergies are going to suffer" from the dust.
> What an honest journalist wrote. This is fine; it is very similar to what Chang said.
(c) "The dust is going to make people with allergies suffer."
> Also possible, but less similar -- Chang did not say "make."
This is the level of accuracy that is expected in journalism. Quoted material is very important and must always be handled with great care and attention.
Often when an average person is interviewed by a reporter, the person is quite surprised by the words later attributed to him or her in the newspaper. This may be because the reporter was too careless with the quotes.