I can't think of a whitty title for this one )=

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/05/11/ent.miss.california.usa/index.html
 
Long story short: Some beauty pagent contestant owned by Donald Trump could get kicked off for breaking the rules.
 
Article analysis: At first glance, it seems like a good article. Good amount of facts, some pretty solid quotes, the whole nine yards. I probably would have not even written about it if it weren't for one thing: one of the quotes at the very end, made by the contestant at question.
 

"This has given me such a bigger platform now," she told KMYI. "I actually have, you know, a purpose and a platform where I can go out and I can speak to people just about standing up for what you believe in, and not, you know, compromising your beliefs for anything."

 

So, my question is, does the writer induce bias by including "you know" in the quote? I understand and have no doubt that this is her exact words, but including the "you know"s infer that she's not entirely sure what she's talking about. It gives the reader a sense of uncirtanty. But if the writer were to exclude the "you know"s, the quote would have had a totaly different feel to it, making it stronger.

 

Is it better to infer bias unintentionaly by using direct quotes, or is it ok to water down such quotes to make articles less one sided? It's an interesting discussion that might be worth taking a look at some day.