CORRESPONDENCE MACHINE REPORTING

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 132, 1 December 1938, Page 8

CORRESPONDENCE

MACHINE REPORTING

use of your columns to make the matter public.—l am, etc., EX-PATIENT. [When the matter was referred to the Hospital authorities, it was stated that they too were quite aware of the unsatisfactory state of the present arrangements, but until further accommodation was available nothing could be done to rectify matters.]

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—As a typist of over twenty years' experience, including dictaphone transcription since 1915, I was very interested to read of the use of a dictaphone in Court and of its probable use in Parliament as an irrefutable record of evidence and speeches. I read in the Press too, that during recent Court proceedings a question arose'concerning a portion of the proceedings which had been omitted from the typescript, and which was easily added after reference to the recording. This would seem to infer that the method is infallible, and an advance on the usual reporting method. Some facts within. my experience would Indicate otherwise. ■ \ Many times records have been dropped and broken; on one occasion in Wellington seven records of an important discussion were "shaved" before transcription, through excessive zeal on the part of an office junior. In London some years ago a very important record of an allegedly secret conversation was " accidentally" dropped before transcription. It is understood, of course, that the important nature of the recording will ensure that every precaution is taken, but accidents do happen, and then where are we—assuming that a competent reporter has not been employed also? v He, if his notes^are missing, can be required to account for them; he cannot blithely say, "I'm. sorry, but I dropped them."—-I am, etc., STENOGRAPHER.