An interesting case has occured in Britain over a journalist using a certain amount of artistic licence in several interviews he had.
Instead of putting down the spoken words of the interviewee, he instead replaced what they had said with pieces of their work instead saying that it is easier to get the point across in this way. But as a result he stands accused of plagiarism by using quotes from other interviews.
As a journalist what he is writing is not the truth of his interview, but he is claiming that by doing so, it gives greater understanding of the topics and people being discussed?
A piece against it
A piece for it
So is he right to write in this way?