Are all Translators Trustworthy?

How can one be assured that a translation is trustworthy?  Most of us have either experienced a bad translation firsthand or have seen poorly translated phrases before.  Some invoke laughter while others are simply cringe-worthy.  In informal settings such as in a classroom or with friends, misspeaking or misinterpreting an occasional word is ok.  Someone may correct you or they may ignore it completely; however, when in a formal setting such as a doctor's office, misinterpreting a word could be very dangerous.  This same principle applies in situations when journalists are working with translators.  

Byron Calame, the 2nd Public Editor for the New York Times, served from 2005- 2007 and mentioned this topic in an article from 2007.  Mark Schroeder, a reader, asked "How can someone who does not speak the language of the people involved quote them and determine an accurate set of facts for an article".  Byron Calame and Andrea Kannapell, an Editor for the Foreign Desk, answered the aforementioned question.  In summary, they stated:

• "Correspondents rapidly develop relationships with translators, with whom they often spend significant time - not just working, but eating and traveling together"

• "Correspondents generally try to use translators that other correspondents have found trustworthy"

• "if a reporter is working with an unfamiliar translator, he or she tends to regard the interview as a starting point for reporting...and seeks more accounts."

In addition to these three main points, Kannapell mentioned times when correspondents have: stopped using translators because of their inaccuracy, used their own non-military translators, and taken a year-long language course to validate translator responses.  At a surface level, it seems like the New York Times has it all figured out when it comes to validating the trustworthiness of their translators, but do they really?  I see multiple issues with the response written by Andrea Kannapell.  

First, I understand the appeal to use translators that have already been 'verified' by other correspondents.  These translators have done a good job and are being rewarded by being allowed to continue their work with the NYT.  However, if other correspondents have already crossed the line with these translators (wine and dine), what's to say that the translators haven't become corrupt?  Yes, one could argue that corrupt people appear in every profession, but this profession is especially of importance.  If NYT correspondents are receiving corrupt news and not knowing it, the whole world is receiving a corrupt view of reality.  As one already knows, news available to citizens HAS been altered to read in one way or another; Willingly, altered by the journalists.  Corrupted translators take this a step further in altering the news before correspondents can even piece together a full, cohesive story.  A way around this would be to verify your translator and his/her work using a third party.

Lastly, using a VERY familiar translator, one that you eat/travel/work with can cause problems.  There is no separation from work and "play" and the lines can become blurred very quickly.  Craft and Davis state, "you are-voluntarily-taking on a set of responsibilities related to that role," and I believe this applies not only to journalists, but also to translators.  In this role, journalists have taken a code of ethics to stay "unbiased".  How can one stay neutral and unbiased if they are travelling and sharing meals with the same person they are using as an official source?  We see this bias happen at the White House for the President, and I'm sure we are all familiar with the phrase "monkey see, monkey do".  

In summary, I'm not sure how to move forward with the issue of trustworthy translators.  Perhaps verifying translators through a neutral 3rd party or mandating this job become volunteer-based (no pay) could help solve this potential problem.  The New York Times IS taking some precautionary measures such as not hiring military based translators and mandating their correspondents take a language course before covering a story in the field.  As someone who took 4 years of a foreign language in High School, I can say with absolute confidence that I am nowhere near fluent.  I can see how the year-long language course may boost correspondents' confidence or simply be a measure to protect the New York Times.  Either way, I'm interested to see how translators play out in the future because by my best guess, our translators will be completely automated AI software in the next 10 years.