Real people tend not to speak in grammatically correct sentences during conversations. Journalists tend to add words like "and" in quotations where the verbatim quote is not grammatically correct, but the meaning is clear.

In formal writing, the inserted word or phrase is supposed to be enclosed in square brackets to indicate that it is not the original source speaking: "he wanted to go to [the] circus".

The slightly more obnoxious "sic" can be used when you want to leave the grammatical error in, indicating that the error is in the original source: "he wanted to go to circus [sic]".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic

A good journalist will adapt their own language to make the unmodified quote fit in where possible. Being misquoted is a sign of sloppy journalism.

"Being misquoted" usually implies that the semantic meaning of what was written is different from what was said. It does not usually mean articles and transitive words were added.

Then it's not a quote.

Have you ever tried to transcribe anything? It's crazy how much garbage comes out with the actual words that form the sentences. Many amazing writers (not to mention linguists) have made their careers developing new written languages to attempt to get a little closer to capturing it, but capturing it is both impossible and an exercise in art, not a sane journalistic practice.

You may not think so, but it's how most "quotes" you read in newspapers and magazines work.

Who reads newspapers or magazines anymore... certainly not me. I expect a quote to be exactly what was said... if someone is correcting the speaker then it's not a quote but a paraphrase. I don't care what the journalist calls it, it's not a quote to me if it isn't exactly what was said.