Relative to most Court reporters today, your project is progressive– you’re interviewing a new set of subjects, telling a story that includes multiple voices, and therefore speaks to a new (and probably more diverse) audience.

Taking a step back, though, this is a more conservative effort. You’re only able to do this sort of reporting because of old-fashioned, face-to-face interaction. What you do with that information (telling a multi-voiced story in a significant part of which the Court is only indirectly approached) is what makes the project interesting and unique. But I think you’ve stepped back from the precipice of a purely electronic, online, social-media-driven “discourse,” and I think that’s a good thing, because I think we lose meaning and value as we become physically distant from each other. (I’ve written a very little bit about this idea, at least tangentially, here: http://questionspresented.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/thevillagegreenpreservationsociety-org)