Wordblog

When I learned reporting the square bracket was virtually unknown in journalism: it was something found in academic writing. Now it is everywhere. It is useful sometimes and probably the result of most journalists having university degrees.

So why is it being so frequently misused? Instead of being used as a means of interpolation in direct quotations it is being used for substitution. The clue to this is what happens to the quoted sentence if the words in the square brackets are removed — it should still make sense. Take this example from today’s Observer:

‘The efficiency challenge for [the Ministry of Justice] is substantial,’ the document says.

It looks very much as if the quote has been doctored by removing a pronoun. That is not how they should be used, as the Guardian style book makes clear:

“Square brackets,” the grammarian said, “are used in direct quotes when an interpolation [a note from the writer, not uttered by the speaker] is added to provide essential information.”

The Economist style book uses this example: “Let them [the poor] eat cake.” Better would have to give us the pure quote and write:

Marie-Antionette said of the poor: “Let them eat cake.”

Mostly the need for square brackets can be avoided by careful writing. If writers do not understand their use what hope has the reader.