In one of my online court reporting groups, I received an email today about a post written by a journalist in San Diego on his blog. So I had a look and this is what I read:
But I have a much more basic question: Why do we have court reporters at all? Aren’t audiotapes much better at catching nuance and inflection? Aren’t videotapes 10 times as revealing and comprehensive as audiotapes? Court reporters are the vermiform appendix of the legal system.
I would like to respond to an argument, but apparently there isn’t one. Unable to point to any of the research and/or findings on verbatim court reporters vs. voice recorders (vs. any of the other numerous alternatives out there), he instead leans on Wikipedia to solidify his stance by citing (?) a big, impressive word: vermiform appendix.
His inability to utilize a rhetorical mode made me ask myself, “Where’s your point?” In my opinion, his little local newspaper is a vermiform appendix. I am quite annoyed with this man, who was such a highly disproportionate amount of knowledge to opportunity to communicate it with the masses.
2 Comments
Ignorance is the key word here. It’s nice to throw numbers around but it would be nicer to know that they mean something. This schmuck believes tape recorders and video recorders (10 times more!) pick up “nuances” better than anachronistic court reporters. What this loser doesn’t realize is the court couldn’t care less about nuance. They want a verbatim record.
The former head at our school, whose name escapes me, told me that when he was starting out, people were talking about stenographers being replaced by tape recorders. Voice activation nonsense always worries me. I’d hate to think I’m putting so much effort into a field that could be made obsolete. So when I hear clowns like this, it really bothers me. It comes to a point where it isn’t a matter of technology but just imbeciles who want to reinvent the wheel getting some kind of force behind them and throwing numbers around and insisting that court reporters are an anachronism. LOOK SOME COURT IN DETROIT DOESN’T USE THEM ANYMORE. Every one else is wrong. Come on see the light. Some jackass lawyer doesn’t like them and wants them gone but he got nowhere with the New York courts. Obviously they’re wrong and he’s right. What’s wrong with New York courts???
I don’t even like looking at the JCR because little things like this drive me up the wall and make me nervous. (Can you tell?!)
By the way, congrats on finally finishing.
I found this in one of my groups and it seems that A NY Court reporter has written back to this man…
Below is his response…
I did a post about this blog in the male reporters group…cameron posted a response that was sent by a NY reporter…very good response.
“A court reporter responds–
Anthony D. Frisolone, an official court reporter for the U.S. District Court – Eastern District of New York, didn’t care for my blog item from yesterday:
I take issue with being called a “vermiform appendix of the legal system.” Court reporters are more than a mere appendage that hangs onto the larger organ but we are an integral part of that organ. This organ being the legal system of the United States of America.
Court reporters are not an anachronism in the electronic age, quite the contrary. Court reporters are part of the electronic age. Court reporters use all available technology to produce a highly accurate transcript. While court systems around the country were still using paper, court reporters were bringing in computers, bought from their own funds, to produce a transcript.
Court reporters are both highly skilled and highly educated in how to produce an accurate written record for use by lawyers and judges. Many of us are either required to hold various certifications and licenses to prove that we are the best we can be or voluntarily hold those licenses and certifications, while a tape transcriber is not required to do any of this. Think about this: Once an audiotape records the proceedings, who is there to produce a transcript? Someone who is not as highly skilled as a court reporter who is licensed or certified to produce a transcript.
I have been active for the past 12 years as a court reporter in educating the bench and the bar in how vital a stenographic court reporter is to the legal system. Many have agreed with me. In 1999, the New York State legislature agreed with us by letting the sunset provision in their tape recording experiment end. Just recently, as President of the New York State Court Reporters Association, I had to educate our elected officials once again that court reporters are better than audiotape in order to save the jobs of court reporters at the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board. In the end, court reporters were victorious and over 200 jobs were saved. Court reporters in New York State as well as around the country are still a visible presence both in the courts at every level and at depositions, meetings, and in classrooms. Court reporters are used in the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United State.
There have been many incidents in the courts of New York State and around the country where tapes have failed miserably costing taxpayers, attorneys, and litigants more money in the retrying of cases. Court reporters have on hand back-up equipment if something should not operate properly.
With the advent of realtime reporting and Communication Access Realtime Translation and closed captioning, the hard-of-hearing community now has access to classrooms, courts, and theatrical events. Practically anywhere a hard-of-hearing person would want to be. In the courtroom or deposition, an attorney can immediately review the real-time output that a court reporter has produced in order to impeach a witness who is testifying falsely. At the end of the session, an attorney or judge can have in their hands a transcript for their review in order to prepare for the next day’s proceedings. With audio and video this is not possible.
As a realtime court reporter, I have been able to provide that access to hard-of-hearing individuals who do not know American Sign Language or how to lip read. Those who I have provided the service to told me that voice recognition has failed them miserably. Myself as well as many of my colleagues have provided access to both civil litigants and criminal defendants. Court reporters are able to stream their real-time record of court or deposition proceedings so participants in remote corners of the world can participate — let’s see if an audiotape can do that.
As far as nuances are concerned, judges and lawyers aren’t concerned with nuances and the inflection of a witness. They are concerned with the evidence which are the questions of the attorney and the answers that a witness gives.
In the area of court reporter education, let me make no bones about it: Not everyone completes the course. However, the students who complete the course are the very best court reporters in the profession. Keep in mind that not every person who enters a four-year program of study completes it either, and since court reporting schools are small institutions the number of dropouts look much worse. However, I cannot condone the actions of a school that is engaging in false advertising or a school that doesn’t monitor their instructors’ performance.
The National Court Reporters Association is making every effort to work with schools around the country to improve their programs and to make sure that instructors are the best they can be in presenting a court reporting curriculum. NCRA offers the Certified Reporting Instructor program which is a two-day program given twice a year coupled with home study projects for candidates to complete.
Upon review of those projects, the candidate is then awarded the designation CRI if they meet the necessary qualifications to pass the course. This program ensures that candidates know how to set up a curriculum, design an effective lesson plan, and how to present their topics clearly.
Finally, as you can see, court reporters are far from a “vermiform appendix of the legal system” but an integral part of it. We have granted access to those who other wise wouldn’t have access. We provide advanced services that other means of capturing the record can’t
I hope that my comments have made you pause to reconsider your opinion of a profession of which I am a proud member. ”
—-
After having read the response from Mr. Frisolone, hopefully Mr. Reed will view court reporters in a different light!