My Thoughts on the Record

The market will accept what the market will accept as a standard for our product, that is, a transcript. I just read an article this week that talked about a lowered standard for transcripts, and it was connected to an article that stated (my read) that digital recording and transcription of same by a sometimes motley pool of transcribers IS becoming accepted in more and more courthouses around the country. "Kinda right" and "pretty close" and "getting the gist" are becoming more the standard in courtrooms across the country, and it's because no one wants to pay for a "true, correct and full" transcript provided by professional court reporters, otherwise known as the gold standard.

If tape transcription was the be-all and end-all method of making the record, so much better than a reporter, then wouldn't the market say THIS is the gold standard, and if you want this gold standard, the one that can do what no other method can, you'll pay more for it?

If tape transcription was so good, why is it so cheap? And please, someone point me in the direction of a tape transcriber who charges what might be considered appropriate rates for their superior service. Don't they take marketing classes EITHER? Don't they know that if you're better, you should be competing on quality and not price?

Minimum-wage tape monitors can't possibly be tasked with ensuring that the record will be recorded so that a transcriber can understand it. They can't be tasked with ensuring that the proceedings will be recorded AT ALL, obviously, with the scores of recording glitches that have come up blank and necessitated retrials and worse outcomes for litigants.

The market will ultimately decide which method they prefer, even and especially in the freelance market. And no matter what our chitchat at a reporters' water cooler (online message boards) may reflect, if the market decides that they want to accept a lowered standard and take the chance on blank tapes and garbled testimony, inaudibles and other failures of a system that doesn't put a highly skilled, trained reporting professional IN CHARGE and RESPONSIBLE for the record, hey, that's what the market will accept.

I make my living, as do many of you, on the fact that there are attorneys and law firms and other client populations who care enough about what THEY do to demand the gold standard when it comes to court reporting services. And even though it's been a slow summer, I still make a damn good living off of those clients who CARE about who they choose to cover their court reporting needs.

And for you reporters out there who believe that the gold standard is you with your machine alone, wake up, okay? I'd like to have a psychologist explain to me sometime why reporters think that by using available and accepted technology to make their jobs easier that they perceive that as a failing of some kind on their part. I believe the failing is in NOT embracing that technology. (Going into Sam Kinnison mode) That's not a manual writer, is it? You don't type your notes on a typewriter any more, do you? And you don't type your notes on a word processor. You don't "type" your notes at all ... you use a computer. You've at LEAST moved into the next century by making THAT leap in technology. You should not be afraid to embrace EVERY available technology to make your job easier and your end product better. That's not saying that without them, you can't do your job. That's saying that with them, you, the reporting professional, will REMAIN the gold standard. In charge. At the helm. Running the show. In control. RESPONSIBLE. And as reporting professionals responsible for making a true, correct and full transcript, I'm sorry, but it IS your responsibility to use EVERY available technology to do that.

A tape transcriber is not tasked with ensuring the record is recorded so that they can accurately transcribe what's there. All they are asked to do is to transcribe what they're given. So is it a cop-out for a tape transcriber to use [inaudible] in a transcript? I don't think so, because it's not their job, they are not RESPONSIBLE for that, so who could fault them for not being able to "figure it out"? Not I. And the quality of their record will reflect that.

But we ARE responsible for the record, and it IS our job to ensure that everything is taken down and transcribed correctly, accurately, perfectly. And we can do that because we're in the process from start to finish. If we can't hear, we SAY so. If people speak overtop of each other, we put an end to it. Is the person pushing "Record" and "Stop" on the digital recording equipment ... sometimes monitoring several courtrooms at a time ... also required to listen for content, to make sure people aren't mumbling, cross-talking, cutting the ends of questions and answers off, and put an end to it so the record doesn't suffer? I think not.

So advocates of electronic recording may SAY there's no difference between "us" and "them," but how much bullshit can someone pack into a marketing campaign, okay? Our hands-on presence at the job from start to finish, our interaction with the client, and our responsibility for the final record are just a few of the differences between "us" and "them." And I DARE any combination of electronic recording and transcription to deliver as fast or as accurate realtime reporting of an event as a trained, skilled, professional realtime court reporter can.

After reading Mr. Record's and Ms. Payonk's comments, I agree with their opinions that realtime technology is what sets us apart from the electronic and digital technologies.  Having done realtime since 1997, it has become apparent how important it is for court reporters to strive for proficiency in realtime.  Even though there are many different ER/DR programs, there are so many examples - as Mr. Record and Ms. Payonk mentioned - as to why a human court reporter proficient in realtime is the No. 1 way to go.  That is my belief.

Having my own personal experience of being forced to use our courthouse digital recording system to record criminal master proceedings, witnessing malfunctioning of the ER/DR equipment where it resulted in the loss of a whole day's worth of proceedings, having to prepare transcripts from the recording equipment and having to insert "inaudibles" within the transcript due to the quality of the recording, people speaking from the audience section with no availability of a microphone, etc., has put a bad taste in my mouth in regards to using ER/DR equipment within the judicial system.  The quality of the record is poor, in my opinion, under those circumstances.  

I take my job very seriously as "the keeper of the record".  It is difficult for me to embrace ER/DR when it is something I do not believe in.  However, I do believe we need to be aware of the technologies we are competing against, and that, in turn, shall push us to strive for excellence and competency as a realtime court reporter.

In regard to voice writers, I have never had any personal experience with that type of reporting.  However, my belief is that a voice writer is much like a steno writer, except the only difference I see is as they hear the spoken word, they produce the record through their voice and steno reporters produce the record through their fingers.

In closing, I truly believe realtime is our future!

I understand that there are a lot of reporters who are afraid of realtime and change.  I try to tell all reporters that I come into contact with, that the first time you write realtime, it feels like you are writing naked.  I was just as nervous as the next person, when I first started doing realtime.  

However, the positive points that I stress to others about realtime is, number one, it will make you a better, more proficient writer.  It helps you build your dictionary.  The bigger the dictionary, the better.  It saves on editing time, in turn, providing your clients, judges, etc., with a rapid turnaround time for receiving the transcript.  Not only are your clients and/or judges impressed with the transcript deliver time, but it saves the reporter editing time.  Time is money!  No matter if you are an official and work for a judge or you are a freelancer and work with attorneys, providing realtime to them assists them in their jobs also.  Of course, realtime is a wonderful tool to assist with the hearing impaired community.  Some reporters are in denial and do not believe that realtime is our future.  But I truly believe that realtime will save our jobs someday.

Those are the reasons that I stress to other court reporters as to why they should bite the bullet, so to speak, and take on realtime technology.  Sometimes I feel like a broken record, but I will continue to promote realtime and its advantages to my colleagues and reporters I come in contact with until the day I retire.

The hardest part is overcoming the fear.

I attended a seminar that dealt with that fear (Anita Paul).  I bugged her and bugged her and bugged her with all my fears...she listened and listened and listened and responded....I felt stronger as a result.

Next I decided what would make the biggest impact.  I chose numbers because my numbers were taking up one and a half lines of text!

I discovered MaryBeth Everhart's CD on numbers.  I would highly recommend her seminars.  She's now eVerbatim Inc.  It also helps to work on your numbers with one teacher or one method.  Then you don't find out you should have chosen Choice B instead of Choice A because Choice B conflicts with something else!

Then I concentrated on two or three changes that were high frequency for me -- and I was there!

My judged liked my realtime a lot!  There was a little period of "wonderment," "the judge likes my realtime?" But he did.

Then it's just been a course of choosing another high frequency item until you've got it down pat and then another.

Then you're on a roll and you're hooked.  You read forums and exchanges ideas and things are better and better.