IPRS logo
Intersteno Parliamentary and
other professional Reporters’ Section
International Federation for Information and Communication Processing INTERSTENO

Hansard editing in a live stream era. Does availability of (live) streams influence editing? (workshop)

Jasmin Geijteman (The Netherlands)

reporter: Désirée de Jong

Sunday’s last speaker is Jasmin Geijteman, reporter at the Dutch parliament. The subject of her presentation is the influence of the availability of live streams on editing. First of all, Jasmin shows that the availability has an impact on parliament itself. The nature of the debates has changed. Members of parliament speak in a more informal way. They are more and more aware of the people who follow debates via live streams. Frequently they address the people who follow the debate at home as well. Some members of parliament adapt their language. The chair often urges the speakers to refrain from using abbreviations and jargon, to make the debate accessible for audiences watching at home.

The possibility to follow the debate real time at home also seems to have an influence on the work of the reporters. In all parliaments transcripts are edited. In the first place, an edited transcript is a comprehensive report, written in the first person singular. Reporters omit obvious mistakes, unnecessary repetitions and redundancies. Now that debates are available “on demand” via internet, people can easily spot the differences between the spoken word and the written report. This raises all kinds of questions about reporting. The idea one has of reporting, of the primary purpose of the report and the primary target group should be (re)considered.

Next, in order to get an impression of the way reporters of different parliaments deal with this type of questions, Jasmin Geijteman invites her audience to reflect on the following questions.

  1. Has your organization made choices in this field?
  2. Have new editing rules been introduced?
  3. Has editing largely changed since the introduction of (live)streaming and/or social media?
  4. Do you explain on your website why the report sometimes differs from the spoken text?
  5. Have you ever had comments about differences between the spoken text and the transcript?

These questions lead to interesting conversations. Most reporters think the way of reporting has indeed changed. Some debates are watched by many on television or via internet, people talk about them on social media and sometimes the suspicion of journalists is roused by a small difference between the report and the actual speech. Reporters must be aware of this reality while making choices in the editing process. These choices may be different from the choices that were made twenty years ago. But this new reality can also be considered as an opportunity for the reporter to show his skills. If the text of the report and the video can easily be compared, people might also note and appreciate the skills of the reporter.

The presentation slides, notes and workshop questions for this presentation are available on our Downloads page.

RSS feed RSS news feed
IPRS on issuu issuu
IPRS on LinkedIn LinkedIn
IPRS Facebook group Join our Facebook group
Intersteno 2017 Berlin
Intersteno