DISQUS

Charlie Becket · 1 year ago

Hi Martin,
Denis has now fleshed out his argument on my blog: www.charliebecket.org which might add weight to the pro-shorthand argument.
However, I confess I am not 'firmly' in his camp. I think that it is a skill that is very useful for frontline reporters but not vital. There are other skills such as an understanding of accounts or a foreign language that could equally make a journalist stand out.
cheers
Charlie

EthicalMartini · 1 year ago

Hi Martin, interesting that this has cropped up for you. I'm a journalism educator in New Zealand where we still have a very much industry-focused and moderated system of journalism education and training.
The national industry training council - the New Zealand Journalists' Training Organisation - mandates shorthand at 80wpm as part of its unit standards.
This applies to the university courses (even at postgraduate level) as much as to the polytechs.
Personally it causes headaches for me.
Towards the end of March I initiated a debate on my blog about the teaching of shorthand and got loads of comments. It also caused much muttering in the halls of the JTO and among older editors and senior journalists.
You can see the debate unfold at Ethical Martini.
http://ethicalmartini.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/...
http://ethicalmartini.wordpress.com/2008/05/01/...

I am not convinced that shorthand is going to remain an essential as audio and voice recognition technology develops. I think that Mindy McAdam and other advocates of online journalism are right to suggest that digital skills in audio, video and image production will be more valuable in the next five to 10 years.

Louise · 1 year ago

Shorthand should remain essential despite advances in audio and voice recognition software because you can quickly scan with your eyes through your shorthand notes of an hour long interview to find the salient quotes much more quickly than you do the same with audio. With shorthand notes, you can see and type up only the bits you need, instead of transcribing and then looking to figure out which bits you need. I don't want to bore people with details about problems regarding voice recognition software, but I doubt they're going to be a viable tool for journalists anytime soon.

As for transcribing long interviews from tapes or audio files, well, your average person speaks at about 180 words a minute, some people speak a lot faster than that. I'm a former legal PA and legal editor who used to edit court transcripts and so I know that even an experienced audio-secretary would take in the region of 5-6 hours to transcribe 1 hour of audio tape. Most journalists I've come across don't actually type as fast as an audio-secretary and would take much longer.

BTW, I'm not actually a print journalist, I'm a broadcast journalist, because I pretty much ruled out a print career as I have a problem with my wrist that means I can't do shorthand.

TimHolmes · 1 year ago

All of the Cardiff magazine students who have taken shorthand (which is not complusory) have found it useful. Those who haven't persevered with it have still got great careers. We recommend it simply because it is such a useful tool.

chrispmim · 1 year ago

I slogged away at a commercial night school in the 1960s learning Pitman's, and I've never regretted it. It's not only an indispensible tool but also a work of art. My only regret is that I wasn't taught a foreign language with such thoroughness.

Dave Lee · 1 year ago

I'd love to agree with markmedia as I can't do shorthand myself -- but I really wish I could. I've written some more over on the Student Journalism Blog: http://blogs.pressgazette.co.uk/students/

CoffeeJohnny · 1 year ago

Last time I looked, courts didn't allow tape recorders in. Shorthand also forces you to concentrate more on what someone is actually saying and allows quicker transcription into eventual articles. You'd be an utter fool to ditch it.

Andy · 1 year ago

It's a good skill but many mistake a good skill with a defining practice. Shorthand does not make the journalist.

There seems to be some idea that shorthand is the failsafe when the batteries in this flash in the pan digital go flat. It won't. Lets see shorthand where it belongs; a great skill and nothing more

LauraO · 1 year ago

I'm a reporter working online and reporting on new media and online journalism, but still, I couldn't do without my shorthand training. It is a failsafe for when my laptop inevitably runs out of juice and my voice recorder lets me down.

It's great for scribbling down quick quotes on the hoof and while I think journalists can get by without it, I'd rather not be without mine. It may just be me, but I find the turnaround from shorthand notes to published copy a lot quicker than any other form of notetaking too.

markmedia · 1 year ago

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.

Gary · 1 year ago

Anyone who thinks it is possible to accurately cover a court case without shorthand is a moron.

Unless and until tape recorders or the like are allowed inside a court that will not change.

If you can't do shorthand you're not a journalist - end of story (no pun intended).

markmedia · 1 year ago

I would ask the same question as Martin: Do you class all journalists outside the UK as both morons and non-journalsits? While I would not dissagree that shorthand is a useful skilll, it is only that.
Recording combined with note taking is the most usual method in Sweden 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 not a deal breaker in most of the world.

Martin Stabe · 1 year ago

So there are no journalists outside the UK and the few other countries where shorthand is a major part of a reporter's education?

barbara buchanan · 1 year ago

Don't ditch shorthand - it's really useful - not just for court reporting but face-to-face interviews. So much quicker than playing back a tape plus your interviewees feel more relaxed without a tape machine in front of them.

Noel Young · 1 year ago

Many years ago as an editor on various training committees (including the NCTJ) I argued against compulsory shorthand, motivated in part by the case of a postgrad student at Strathclyde University who was denied her journalism diploma because she failed her shorthand. Today, enjoying a personal renaissance as a freelance in the US, I regret that did not polish my own shorthand skills. It is a great tool and a great timesaver, providing you are skilled enough to read it back

Louise · 1 year ago

I recall some eager student journalists at City University raised a similar query during post-talk drinks in the pub with an AP executive who had come to give a talk at the journalism school. Some of the students mentioned that a BBC editor had said in a previous similar talk that in a recruiting situation, given a choice between two equally qualified and experienced candidates, only one of whom had shorthand, the candidate with shorthand would be offered the job.

Students asked if AP had a similar hiring policy and the executive agreed that given a choice between two similarly qualified and experienced candidates, one with shorthand, one without, the candidate with shorthand would be offered the job.

This was a few years ago though, in the wake of the Andrew Gilligan affair, which partly revolved around the reliability of electronic note-taking devices, and tracking original notes and subsequent amendments. Whether it's still such an issue for recruiters now or not, I don't know.

Saraswati · 1 year ago

I am studying to be a journalist and whilst on my work placement it was very discouraging to see this other experienced reporter taking down notes faster than the speed of light ( slight exagg.), hence I am all for shorthand - it is an asset.

Charlie Becket · 1 year ago

Hi Martin,
Denis has now fleshed out his argument on my blog: www.charliebecket.org which might add weight to the pro-shorthand argument.
However, I confess I am not 'firmly' in his camp. I think that it is a skill that is very useful for frontline reporters but not vital. There are other skills such as an understanding of accounts or a foreign language that could equally make a journalist stand out.
cheers
Charlie

Colin Dyter · 1 year ago

i'm currently going through the pains of validating a new Journalism degree here at Derby University. all along the way i've battled for shorthand to be included, while the university inquisitors insist it is not an academic subject. i find this staggering - what could be more useful than taking down 'appropriate' notes in lectures, to which students can instantly refer later? the attitude in Academia is still to place Shorthand alongside Typing, as in Shorthand-Typist. as far as journalism is concerned, there is no doubt in my mind that it is an essential skill, not just for getting accurate, instantly readable (and legally binding) notes, but also for the confidence it instils in the user. There have been many times when i've taken a voice recording, and at the vital moment someone coughs or makes some other bizarre noise, and the quote is later found to be lost for ever. Shorthand is not merely squiggles on a page: it is a solid, trustworthy recorder of events. A definition of a good journalist, perhaps? It's going to be in our Journalism degree.

journoblogger · 1 year ago

Surely this is a no-brainer - if you've got to cover a court, as most trainees do, you're in deep trouble without shorthand. Seems like employers prefer it - a persuasive argument. So buckle down and get stuck in - no pain, no gain. For more, see my blog http://thejournoblog.blogspot.com/ .

paul durrant · 1 year ago

It will be a sad day indeed when shorthand is no longer considered an essential tool in the reporter's tool bag. The ability to scribble accurately at 100wpm to cover courts, councils and public meetings is obvious to anyone who's ever done the job.
I also think that if trainees knuckle down and achieve 100wpm - particularly when it may not come naturally to academic high-flyers - it shows the sort of dedication we are looking for from people seeking to get into the industry.

blondeambition · 1 year ago

.

blondeambition · 1 year ago

hear hear mr durrant. Technology is helpful but it's not a replacement for everything. Will an interview done over skype ever be better than face to face? Unlikely. When time's of the essence, getting the right quote needs to be done by looking through a shorthand note - waiting to hear the right bit in reams of recorded info is not the best use of time. Being a good journalist has many challenges - mastering shorthand is one of them. If students are looking for a shortcut or a way around this, there may be something remiss in their dedication to the profession...

Julian Bray · 1 year ago

News of the World require all interviews to be taped and the words on that tape only to be included in any subsequent report--editorial memo last week picked up by The Guardian

sarika · 1 year ago

Interesting topic especially at a time when journalists are taking the short cuts, sensationalising news and misrepresenting quotes to suit their stories. taking notes accurately and completely is possible only with shorthand. recorders have their merit but can take up precious time when you have news editors sitting on your head to hand over copy quick, to make changes etc all of which is possible without you hitting the ceiling, by referrring to good old hand made notes - easy to reach out for, and less stressful to deal with. i mean recorders and dictaphones are fine as back up but notes in shorthand should be the first preferred choice for any mature, sensible and serious reporter

http://blogs.livemint.com/blogs/career/archive/...

sarika · 1 year ago

http://blogs.livemint.com/blogs/career/archive/...

this blog post talks on the theme of shorthand in journalism quite succinctly.

Chris Edwards · 1 year ago

I take shorthand and, often but not always, use a digital recorder.

As people have said above, you absolutely need shorthand to do UK court work. Maybe that's an anachronism of the court system but that's the way it is. Unnerves barristers as well if you do it as a juror.

For public speeches, I'll take shorthand and make a recording as a backup, timestamping the notes after crucial points. I can read back through the shorthand very quickly and mark it. If I've marked something as *chk*, then I can check the recording. But I reckon I work much faster from shorthand than trying to deal with a recording, even with timestamps.

Some people don't like being recorded and are more comfortable with someone taking written notes. It happens. Shorthand gets you better notes in those situations.

James · 3 months ago

I wish I could do shorthand but alas I have always struggled with it because of a disablity. I managed to get up to 50-60 and I'm sure I could master it eventually.It's a fantastic tool and one that every aspiring journalist should throw everything into learning. Digital recordings make a great back up but the time taken to go through them mean they should only really ever be a back up when it comes to news.
I have to say though, as a trainee reporting back by phone to the news desk that perhaps touch typing should be taught too!

Dominic Ponsford · 1 year ago

Mark - I bet UK journalists with shorthand write stories a lot quicker than you Swedish who must spend a lot time spoiling through tape recordings.
I understand shorthand is also extremely handy if you are compiling a video report and taking notes from the rushes for your voice-over.