Is this just a straight-up error from CNN?

I'm also not sure what to do about things like this; I don't want to contact CNN and bug them about it, but I don't want to doctor the quote.

Sometimes the errors on CNN are so egregious (repeated words) that it's just a straight-up typographical error and so I correct it. So I guess that I could change "role" to "roles" in this instance, but only if this is so egregious that it's in the "typographical error" bucket.

You say that you do not want to "doctor" the quotation.

I was just wondering whether you would consider it "doctoring" if  "[sic]" were used. 

For example: "The role that his allies have played have [sic] been of interest to the committee."

I don't do the "[sic]" thing; I personally find it distracting and unaesthetic and disruptive. But I agree that that would be an option if I were OK with that.

Thanks!

@Andrew Van Wagner posted:

My last 3 posts haven't been responded to by the way; this forum is incredible and useful and wonderful so I'm not in any way complaining of course but I hope one day I can get help with those.

See here (note that "role" is singular and the verb "have" doesn't seem to agree with it):

https://join.substack.com/p/urgent-16-questions

“The role that Trump’s allies in Congress played have been of interest to the committee, which has subpoenaed five House GOP members, including Biggs and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.”

Hi, Andrew—Yes, "The role . . . have been of interest"  is, of course, an error, and should have either been "The roles . . . have been of interest" or "The role . . . has been of interest."

I shall look at your last three posts and may reply to them. I might have responded to them sooner had I not been away from home visiting family on the other side of the country.

Thanks so much! I really appreciate your help!