Comments on: Alison Gow: Would live court reporting work in the UK? http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2009/04/02/alison-gow-would-live-court-reporting-work-in-the-uk/ Online journalism news Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:39:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Laura Oliver http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2009/04/02/alison-gow-would-live-court-reporting-work-in-the-uk/comment-page-1/#comment-11764 Laura Oliver Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:37:02 +0000 http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/?p=9305#comment-11764 Fortunately the original report from Florida was March 24 :) - http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2009/03/24/0324fedorder.html Fortunately the original report from Florida was March 24 :) – http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2009/03/24/0324fedorder.html

]]> By: Jon Pratty http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2009/04/02/alison-gow-would-live-court-reporting-work-in-the-uk/comment-page-1/#comment-11763 Jon Pratty Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:34:53 +0000 http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/?p=9305#comment-11763 This has fascinating possibilities; it could mean that contemporaneous notes/reporting from the courtroom - normally covered by qualified privilege if it meets the legal requirements - would no longer be archived and guarded by one source. That might mean that alternative versions of a courtroom statement would have equal legal status even if they differed slightly, or even substantially. Additionally, it might also mean that open courts truly become open courts, with free access to proceedings available to all in a form only mediated by the initial transcriber/journalist. We'd all have our own copies of content from the court. Which is good, because it means you're getting a view from the court that has only been filtered by one person, and not re-interpreted and repeatedly translated from note form to final published piece, etc. On the other hand - the story is perilously close to April 1. Jon This has fascinating possibilities; it could mean that contemporaneous notes/reporting from the courtroom – normally covered by qualified privilege if it meets the legal requirements – would no longer be archived and guarded by one source.

That might mean that alternative versions of a courtroom statement would have equal legal status even if they differed slightly, or even substantially.

Additionally, it might also mean that open courts truly become open courts, with free access to proceedings available to all in a form only mediated by the initial transcriber/journalist. We’d all have our own copies of content from the court.

Which is good, because it means you’re getting a view from the court that has only been filtered by one person, and not re-interpreted and repeatedly translated from note form to final published piece, etc.

On the other hand – the story is perilously close to April 1.

Jon

]]>