Dear Naz Shah
In recent occasions, it has been brought to my attention that Hansard has been edited quite a lot.
The report itself, it has been described as ‘edited verbatim’, verbatim means exactly the same words used as were originally however to me personally this is a contradiction because how can something be said originally however be edited.
In my opinion Hansard should not be edited and stand by what it described itself as, and give an official account of what was said exactly and not what makes sense to the writer.
Because some of the report has been written in a way that the speaker didn’t actually say, the texts meaning has slightly changed due to the interpretations to the text some pauses have been missed, some words have been missed which doesnt actually give an account of the true menaning and what really was said.
For example when Russell Brand answers a question given by a chair member, Russell starts by saying ‘umm’ however in the report this is not noted and included in the report and this one word has a huge affect on the report because if Russell had not said that it would look like his answer was rehearsed however the word ‘umm’ shows that he had to think about what he was going to say.
I personally don’t think the Hansard report should be edited because the writer said that it was written in the same way it was said and really it wasn’t so the writer has lied to the readers and makes them think that what is shown on the report is exactly what was said however there were some words that were different and there were some pauses that were not recognised which changes the reports whole dynamic.