Proofreader or Scopist for a new reporter?

[Heather]

Hi, I'm in my 200 class, and we recently had a guest speaker who mentioned she always uses a proofreader. My teacher said she used a scopist for the first few years, but did her own proofing. What exactly does each of them do to a transcript, and which is more important for a new reporter to have? Thanks!

Heather

[Brenda Rogers]

Personally, I think a new reporter needs to scope his or her own work. You need to see your outlines, the way your work translates, make your own dictionary entries. But get a proofreader. A second pair of eyes is very helpful! After a year or so, a scopist can be very helpful to get the transcript to the proofing stage, but that first year -- at LEAST -- is where the new reporter is really learning and refining and needs to be hands-on with the transcript. IMO.

[Kyung]

A proofreader goes through a transcript looking for grammatical errors and proofs the transcript.
A scopist goes through and basically fixes any untranslates and drops, puts the transcript into a form which can be proofed by the reporter or a proofer.

I think a second pair of eyes for a first-year reporter is always important, a proofer. The first year out, you'll be learning a lot. I think it's probably a good idea to have a proofer and wait a while before you get a scopist.

[Heather]

Awesome, thanks for the info!

[Lois Whitley]

To me, as a scopist, my work always also includes proofreading transcript. I figured all scopists automatically did that. Why have two different people besides yourself handling the transcript, and having to pay two different people? I personally would feel guilty if I didn't fix any punctuation, etc. for the reporter. But I would agree, a new reporter needs to scope her or his own work at first. That's just my thoughts.