Does digital recording have a rightful place in capturing and preserving the court record? Absolutely !! Does stenography? Absolutely !!

The trick is to determine the selection criteria and use the choice that is most appropriate to the needs of particular hearing types.

As an outsider to the court reporting field looking in, I’ve spent numerous hours per day for the last week researching the occupation of digital reporting on Google because I want to change careers when moving to Florida from Michigan. I have specialized in professional audio equipment in the music field for the last 35 years. I feel it is feasible for me to use that and my other writing/editing skills to earn a stable income for my family in something I could enjoy. Anyway… I see identical similarities in this debate to other fields of endeavor where the “old school” types who aren’t going to budge are eventually wiped out by new technology. Some are:

1. Churches refusing to buy a digital piano because their pianist refuses to play one. The church must either maintain a constant temperature and humidity in the sanctuary 24/7 or pay for manual tuning every couple months. That costs about $750 a year or very high utility bills that are even worse. Digital pianos never go out of tune because there are no strings. Miking an acoustic piano is hell for the sound crew and 99% of miked acoustic pianos sound terrible while a digital piano plugs into the system for a superior 24-bit realistic “in your face” studio sound. Who loses by sticking to the old technology? Everybody but the player. Acoustic pianos feel and sound heavenly in close proximity but today’s churches require today’s technology. The snobby pianist is eventually ousted, or leaves in a huff, and is replaced by someone willing to embrace new technology.

2. Manual typewriters versus electric typewriters. Then electric typewriters versus word processors. Those of us who adapted are much more efficient, create better output, and have advantages like spell-check, grammar-check, instant changes with no White-Out strips or bottles, etc. that are vastly superior to banging on keys with a 1 1/2″ travel or overly sensitive electric relay keys. Those who refused to adapt eventually retired, or were ousted, to be replaced by those embracing new technology.

3. Vinyl records versus CDs. Then CD versus various MP3 players. Vinyl is almost non-existent today except with listeners who call themselves purists and for some sick reason enjoy popping, crackling, hiss, limited frequency response, and low dynamic range on a media that starts to deteriorate the first time you sit a needle on it. Those who embrace new technology enjoy digital almost-studio-quality wherever they go with players smaller than a pack of cigarettes while those who refuse can only listen at home with a discontinued belt-driven turntable using hard-to-find needles and crappy heat-sensitive vinyl platters.

4. Beta and SuperBeta versus VHS, VHS-C, and S-VHS video tapes. VHS versus small digital tape. Digital recording onto digital tape. Digital tape versus hard drive direct recording. Digital tape versus CD or DVD direct recording. Hard drive versus SD flash card. Smaller, better, higher capacity, and refined. Self explanatory.

5. Horse and buggy versus gas-powered engines.

6. Propeller planes versus jets.

7. Film-based still cameras versus digital.

8. Stove cooking everything versus microwave oven.

In every case new technology has a rough start and initially seems primitive but ends up taking over as it demonstrates advantages like improved efficiency, decreased cost, and better results. The old technologies still exist but become a fallback, lesser used, and sometimes historical jokes of their industries.

Those of you who are currently court reporters are very talented hard workers, there’s no doubt, and I know I couldn’t do what you do. But when one’s income level climbs to a point where employers feel its excessive (as proven by U.S. auto laborers being replaced by robots and pre-assemblies being built overseas and imported), those who do the hiring start looking for alternatives to cut overhead. Especially in economic times like we’re having today.

Whether you like it or not (you can debate these things until you are 100 and will accomplish nothing), if a single digital reporter monitors a multi-track recording system for court or deposition with the mics set up properly - or two, or four courts for $35-50,000 a year, and records onto 5-cent CDs that are easily duplicated and stored, this is using new technology to reduce costs while maintaining a “good enough” output quality. That’s what employers want - good enough and less cost. Eventually, as technology improves, output will be excellent and cost will be low. That’s what technology does best.

Digital reporting WILL improve and dominate because the technology is already available in music recording but just hasn’t crossed over yet. Multi-track reporting recorder decks are going by the wayside (Marantz has apparently stopped production), for example, and software capable of 24-bit (recording studio quality) on a laptop is taking over. 4-track systems will eventually move to 8-tracks. 8-tracks will eventually move to 16-track. Equipment vendors will eventually begin using compressor-limiters to boost clarity and automatically control level on tracks. This will help transcriptionists boost their output 10X with the help of already available speech-to-text software that gets better every year and requires very clear input to give acceptable output.

I’d predict, from studying historical examples such as those above, that the best thing for court reporters is to learn and add exceptional digital reporting skills to their abilities instead of mocking the technology and do both to remain in demand. Then as old technology falls away you will be prepared to continue working instead of complaining that the legal world left you behind.

However, even though there are exceptions, there is a serious lack of knowledge on this subject on the part of most court reporters, and i must say that includes you, Karen Geddes, and you, Chris Crawford, and you, Rosalie Kramm, and you, Candace.

I can’t believe Steve actually took the time to write out all of that. You’re dealing with people who take one piece of anecdotal evidence and stretch it to apply to the whole basket. Those kinds of people will not listen to logic or reason.

I’m going to be honest with you. My transcripts have about 1-2 errors, period, (this includes missing commas or anything at all whatsoever) every hundred pages or so; i don’t know how many 9s would even go in that — 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% error free? I have no idea.

Not even many court reporters can keep up with that. I’m pretty sure the generally accepted error rate for stenographers is something on the order of 95 to 98%, depending on the state/school/etc, which is pretty horrendous if you ask me. I think i might have produced a transcript that error ridden on my very first try at transcribing.

If your electronic reporters don’t speak up to ask what a witness is saying or to clarify something, that makes them a bad reporter; that’s what causes inaudibles. it certainly doesn’t make electronic reporters categorically bad. If you want to argue about that one particular point, or say that it’s rude to interrupt, then i would say you aren’t really looking to take down an accurate record, steno or otherwise.

Of course, that’s not to say that traditional stenographers don’t have a place. It’s just changing, and the hard fact is, if you aren’t willing to change, everyone is going to leave you in the dust.

I’m going to go back to what Steve said. Is it really so much of a loss when he switches positions from going to court every day of the week or to some law office in the same city every week, to deciding, “Hey, i think i want to go to France today,” and still being able to do his job? Honestly, you’d have to be nuts to disagree with that, lol!!

I know plenty of court reporters who are starving for work and can’t even pay their mortgages, yet are refusing to do simple things like even transcribe with their steno machine (which they could probably play the audio at faster than 100% and still get it, i mean the hourly rate would still be real good). i have a dictionary that i work on just like stenographers, and that is where my dollar signs are. The faster i get, the more money i make in an hour. i have worked hard at developing my FastFox dictionary and i’m pretty proud of it.

i work real hard for my money and i make good money, too. It’s very disturbing how many times i read on depoman and other places, how many stenographers dehumanize transcribers and electronic reporters, like we’re just brainless people that have no idea what’s going on ever. Stenographic & electronic reporters, as well as transcribers, are people too, just trying to pay the bills and make a living. Most stenographers act like i don’t do anything, like i don’t work 18 hours a day (which i do, 5 days a week + 12 on the 6th).

Such a prima donna attitude is just really disrespectful to your entire, noble stenographic profession, not to mention completely unprofessional. But the most unfortunate part that makes me sad for you is that if you don’t change your attitude, you will just get left behind instead of reaping the rewards that come with change (i.e. working on a beach in Italy).

Anyways, in about two months, i will be doing exactly what Steve talked about doing in Italy, and i’ll still be able to make six figures, with no kids. And i’m just a solo transcriber who works a lot. So i’m sorry you aren’t willing to pick up that opportunity and run with it, because the only person who loses out in that situation is you.

As a business person who owns a court reporeting company and having been asked to transcribe the tapes that come from courtrooms with ER, I can assureyou the transcript quality is not as good as if there were a live reporter present using stenography to create the record. There are so many instances of blips in the recording, non-identified speakers, people shuffling paperworkon the microphones, and a myriad of other things that it takes sometimes three or four times longer to transcribe from a recording. This will never equal cost savings for the court system, nor will it provide an acurrate transcript. Students, stay in stenotypy school. There is a future for you, and we need you.