There was some debate in our flat tonight as to whether the above phrase is good English or not. The university rag had carried an article about one of the university clubs being reported upon unfavourably by a national newspaper. A spokesman for the club had made a statement with the phrase “misrepresented unfairly” within it.
My flatmate stated that this was bad English as the “unfairly” was redundant. His reasoning being that you would never say that a misrepresentation was fair, so the opposite must be wrong. I, however, took the opposing stance and claimed that the sentence was perfectly fine. More specifically, I claimed that the “unfairly” was needed to resolve the ambiguity of whether the reporter in question had deliberately misrepresented the actions of the club (i.e. he was being disingenuous) or whether it had been an honest mistake.
So, who was correct? Is “misrepresented unfairly” good English? Were both of us wrong?
Unfairly misrepresented; still don’t like it; still sounds like they wanted to be misrepresented better.
Although it could be a meaningful qualifier, for example:
Unfairly misrepresented - “Hardly anybody in America wants guns to remain legal” - the statistic offered does not fairly represent reality.
Dishonestly misrepresented - “George W Bush said he would chew the head off a live chicken if Saddam is found not guilty” - the alleged quotation is a lie.
I suppose other qualifiers are also possible; Accidentally misrepresented - perhaps due to a typo Necessarily misrepresented - where it is acknowledged that the subject cannot be properly described in the available terms - the wave/particle duality of light and the Christian doctrine of the Trinity
The overwhelming expectation of “good English” is that the message is expressed in a way that the majority of recipients have a substantially similar understanding of the intended meaning. That doesn’t seem to be the case here.
They had lousy representation would be more widely understood.
I vote wrong. “Represented unfairly,” “Unfairly represented,” or simply “misrepresented” sounds correct to my ears. “Misrepresented unfairly” sounds redundant, as other poster have said.
If I misrepresent myself, or am excessively unclear, and someone else misrepresents me based on my own misrepresentation or obscurity, then they have fairly misrepresented me.
If they misrepresent me for their own reasons, then they have misrepresented me unfairly.
Can I put in a vote for not bad English, or redundent, but actually a double negative. I always think it’s funny when a newspaper or or radio station or some media outlet will be talking about a company that’s having problems and mention that it’s poorly mismanaged. Always seemed to me that being poorly mismanaged would be a good thing. I wouldn’t want someone working for me doing a good job of mismanaging.
I can’t see why a misrepresentation must necessarily be unfair. For example, suppose Stephen Hawkings and I were both asked to read and summarise a scientific paper dealing with black holes. If Stephen Hawkings misrepresented the contents of that paper, then I think we can safely assume that he is being disingenuous (although even he may have the occassional off day). I, however, not being an expert on anything related to black holes may genuinely misrepresent the thrust of the paper due to my lack of understanding.
If I understand what you are saying, and it isn’t easy to do that, the “someone else” hasn’t misrepresented you at all.
For example, if you say, “I own this car.” when you don’t own it you have misrepresented yourself. If someone then says, “He owns this car.” you haven’t been misrepresented in that you your claim has been presented accurately. And I don’t think you have been misrepresented if someone says, “He doesn’t own this car.” because in fact you don’t own the car.
It’s either unfairly represented, or simply misrepresented. In the example you’ve provided, yours would be a simple misrepresentation - maybe even an acceptable one, given your lack of understanding of the subject. Hawkings, OTOH, could have unfairly represented it (being disingenuous), or he could have simply misrepresented it.
'Represent: To describe or present in words; set forth."
'Misrepresent: To give an incorrect or misleading representation of."
(Cite: Answers.com)
Maybe to miss-missrepresent might…well, no, but…
Now I’m getting a headache.
Where’s Cronos and his math? I can not understand him less than I understand this this thread.
I think.
Pass the beer.
