This article originally appeared in the Editorial Advantage newsletter.
Writing, like every other profession, has its specialists: novelist, publicist, poet, essayist. The rapporteur is one such specialist. Organizations hire them to meet the need—and sometimes the legal requirement—for accurate reports of meetings.
Publication and program managers sometimes casually assign any willing and available staff person to be a meeting’s rapporteur: to sit through a meeting and then write a report of what transpired. But these same managers, after spending hours editing and re-writing the results, are now concluding that the job of rapporteur has its own set of specialized professional requirements.
A “rapporteur,” according to Webster, is someone “responsible for compiling reports and presenting them, as to a governing body.” It sounds like—but is not like—a “reporter.” The latter (again, Webster) is someone “employed to gather and report news, as for a newspaper, wire service, or television station.” A “reporter,” therefore, writes primarily for the reading or viewing public; a “rapporteur” writes for a specific client: a “governing body” or any person or group who requires a specific meeting report.
Reporters are trained and rewarded for ferreting out information that is new, different, or controversial, and for identifying who is up and who is down. Rapporteurs, on the other hand, are committed to accurately and objectively noting what was said, when, and by whom, and to compiling those notes in a report that significantly helps the meeting sponsor (governing body, executive director, or assistant secretary).
A good reporter raises questions, airs doubts, highlights dissension, draws comparisons (invidious or otherwise), and in other ways adds interpretive depth to a report. A good rapporteur does none of these. The interpretation remains the province of the client/sponsor.
Good reporters are hard to find. Good rapporteurs are an even rarer breed.
Ask us for bios of rapporteurs in your field.
