Do Journalists Need Shorthand Anymore?
This morning I was at a validation meeting for various journalism courses at the London College of Communication with a panel that included Observer journalist Denis Campbell. Denis was an excellent sports correspondent before turning his attention to health matters, so he has seen different aspects of the trade. The question before the assembled journalism educators was “do you need to insist that ALL journalism students have good levels of shorthand?”
This is what Denis thinks:
The point I was trying to make about Avram Grant was that if he comes into the Chelsea press room at 10pm after a Champions League semi-final and talks for 10 minutes and the reporter has until 10.30pm to file 400 of Avram’s choicest words — a typical scenario — then not having shorthand will leave him unable to provide the necessary copy by deadline. A tape recorder gets it exactly, but is laborious to transcribe. And one’s fellow reporters who do have shorthand will be too busy writing furiously to share it with you, as they’ll be up against their deadline too. So what will be journalist-without-shorthand do then?
It seems to me that in the integrated media age more reporters are going to have to file more copy more often for more outlets, at least from big events — sports tournaments, court cases, big running stories etc — as they’ll be filing for their paper’s website, as well as the paper product, and maybe their radio station etc (like some DTel staff do now). Time will be even more precious than it is now. So shorthand will be even more important. If journalism teaching colleges decide that even basic shorthand is no longer necessary, will sports editors and news editors in future feel confident in college-trained people to send them to big events where such filing requirements are standard? If I was that person’s boss, I’d choose someone else who won’t be faffing around. What if their tape recorder breaks down?
My partner the London College of Communication is renowned for preparing students for the rigours of real newsroom life. They come away from the Elephant and Castle with all the legal, governmental and practical editorial knowledge needed to work in local, national and international newsrooms. But in a world of new media where everything is digitised and where so much of journalism is about re-working material, do you need to devote 100 hours to teaching 80 words per minute of scribble?
I was taught Teeline on an NCTJ course in Harlow many years ago. It was the most painful exam I have ever taken. I used my shorthand regularly when I worked in local papers reporting courts and councils. I have used it occasionally since then. But as a TV producer and then editor, it was a handy skill rather than the vital tool of someone who covers trials or diplomatic press conferences.
But Denis argues that even in sports journalism it has become significant. Indeed, his case is that with New Media it has become even more important because it gives the ‘professional’ hack a market advantage. This week’s Press Gazette has three cases where sports journalists are being sued and if they don’t have proper notes based on short-hand then their case might be weakened. And as Denis said, if you are in a press conference and Avram Grant says something controversial (some chance) then shorthand may still be the best way to isolate the quote is and put it in the paper (or website).
I see his point. There can be no harm in having a skill that doesn’t depend on a computer chip or a battery. But I suspect that there are now many other forms of journalism apart from straight reporting: features, commentary, video etc So is it less necessary? Those of us who have shorthand like to think that it is vital, but is it any more important than an ability to type fast enough for Twitter?
Š
May 8th, 2008 at 10:06 am
In Sweden – where I am based – shorthand has never been part of the journalism skills set. Not taught at all. We *still* manage to get stories written, court reports filed and all those other things British journalists seem to think are impossible without shorthand.
Ditch it I say.
May 8th, 2008 at 10:56 am
That’s really interesting – so in practical terms how dooes a Swdish hack cover courts? Longhand notes of key quotes? Indirect quotes? Transcripts? Recordings?
May 8th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
And you can’t make a podcast out of a short-hand quote either…
May 8th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
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.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
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.
May 9th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
>>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!
May 20th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Sorry: That should read NOT a deal breaker in the rest of the world.
May 22nd, 2008 at 7:14 am
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/
August 14th, 2008 at 5:13 am
[...] 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. [...]
November 30th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
[...] 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. [...]
December 22nd, 2008 at 9:42 pm
[...] 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. [...]
March 26th, 2009 at 2:26 am
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!