Comments on: Do Journalists Need Shorthand Anymore?

By: Michael Han

Michael Han — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:26:00 +0000

Whether you call it shorthand or not, it’s better to standardize it like in the English-speaking world. I know of too many accounts of sloppy writing (aka individualized shorthand) by journalists and others in foreign countries. When you do have a standardized shorthand, it becomes legible at least by two or more people–which is more useful then being legible by only one. So, shorthand forms should spread to more countries!

By: Shorthand or the Dictaphone, a 21st century dilemma « Jordan Farley’s Weblog

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 20:42:31 +0000

[...] Finally the biggest advantage of shorthand according to Denis Campbell, Observer sports reporter,� is that it is so much faster to use� than an� audio recording. In an environment where rapid filing requirements are standard (such as at� sports events), it isn’t practical for journalists to be rewinding audio devices and searching for that essential quote or bit of information. Shorthand notes offer an instantly accessible record of events that can be skimmed over in a matter of seconds not minutes. [...]

By: Shorthand or the Dictaphone, a 21st century dilemma « Jordan Farley’s Weblog

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 22:52:06 +0000

[...] Finally the biggest advantage of shorthand according to Denis Campbell is that it is so much faster than audio recordings. In an environment where rapid filing requirements are standard (such as sports events), it isn’t practical for journalists to be rewinding audio devices and searching for that essential quote or bit of information. Shorthand notes offer an instantly accessible record of events that can be skimmed over in a matter of seconds not minutes. [...]

By: How do we write Maori words in shorthand? « Ludditejourno’s Weblog

How do we write Maori words in shorthand? « Ludditejourno’s Weblog — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 04:13:12 +0000

[...] How useful shorthand might be� for journalists� has been debated fairly recently – from being passionately defended by Dave Lee, to having the relevance of teaching it here in Aotearoa queried by Martin Hirst at AUT, to other journos around the world having their say. [...]

By: Martin Hirst

Martin Hirst — Thu, 22 May 2008 06:14:38 +0000

I love the line about making a podcast out of shorthand notes.
This debate is live in New Zealand as well.
You can follow our commentary here:
http://ethicalmartini.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/whos-still-teaching-shorthand/
http://ethicalmartini.wordpress.com/2008/05/01/responses-to-my-posts-on-shorthand/

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 20 May 2008 09:50:18 +0000

Sorry: That should read NOT a deal breaker in the rest of the world.

By: Charles

Charles — Fri, 09 May 2008 15:12:53 +0000

>>I always marvel at the way UK journos really believe that shorthand is an absolute pre-requisite. It is handy, granted. But a deal breaker in most of the world.
>>

How on earth a dealbreaker? It’s an additive skill – you can still record, but the beauty of shorthand is that you then have a random-access record of the conversation, etc, which you can write up at high speed, rather than having to transcribe from tape.

(It has multiple advantages: if you want to write rude notes about the person, you can – while some might be able to read upside-down, shorthand upside-down isn’t going to happen. )

If someone rings me on the phone with an important story (as happened this morning), do I have to drop everything until I can find a recorder? How rude to them. Instead I have three pages of notes which I can read back with all the relevant quotes and information. That’s the power of shorthand.

Transcription from tape is useful if you need the exact exact quote (eg with politicians) but it’s donkey work for the most part. Serial access vs random access: random access wins every time.

Does every journalist need it? It’s certainly a useful skill. We may all need new skills, but there’s a lot to be said too for the old ones too – and shorthand fits that. Pencil, paper, rat-like cunning, plausible manner – you’re good to go!

By: Chris Edwards

Chris Edwards — Thu, 08 May 2008 14:31:26 +0000

If you don’t need to take notes, you don’t need shorthand.

If you do need to take notes, shorthand carries some distinct advantages. It might be a pain to learn at first but it’s way easier on the wrist than longhand, for any kind of writing that you need to transcribe later. But it’s killer advantage over tape is that you can scan through a half hour/full hour of interview and find what you need very quickly without having to sit and transcribe the whole thing. If you need to turn around copy for stories very quickly, shorthand pays for itself many times over. Don’t need the speed? Don’t use shorthand.

Until automated transcription is a reality, shorthand is likely to be quicker to use in most situations. And, if you’re shorthand is a bit ropey, you can still use tape/flash memory as a backup, just marking down the times at fairly regular intervals.

Of course, if you’re a UK court reporter, you don’t have a choice: tape verboten.

By: mark

mark — Thu, 08 May 2008 14:30:34 +0000

All of the above actually. Recording combined with longhand note taking is the most usual method at the moment. Transcripts take too long to get if you are on deadline. I always marvel at the way UK journos really believe that shorthand is an absolute pre-requisite. It is handy, granted. But a deal breaker in most of the world.

By: Rick Waghorn

Rick Waghorn — Thu, 08 May 2008 14:15:16 +0000

And you can’t make a podcast out of a short-hand quote either…