There have been a number of people in the court reporting profession who have expressed concern over the rising use of digital recordings in courtrooms and legal depositions. This technology when used correctly is a powerful tool for the court stenographer and not the threat to the profession some people perceive.

Court Stenographers Are Not Tape Recorders

The controversy arises from the fact that some court systems in this country are using digital recordings as a replacement for a certified court reporter. The systems are presumed to be as accurate a listener as a live human being.

The fundamental problem with digital recordings is that they are only one way. A high fidelity recording can catch every detail of what someone said, but if a witness - or an attorney - mumbling a high-fidelity recording of "mfprg" isn't going to be useful. A recorder can't ask a speaker to repeat, to clarify or to spell his name.

Court stenographers commonly add notes as they transcribe, adding details such as "Witness pointed to John Smith when speaking." Although some digital recordings also have video, many do not - leaving future listeners scratching their heads when a witness proclaims, "He did it!"

Recordings Enhance A Reporter's Senses

A court stenographer is a professional listener, picking up details and subtleties of speech that the average person would overlook. However there are times that even a skilled reporter can mishear what is said.

Recordings allow the reporter to review what was said after the proceedings are over, verifying the accuracy of the transcription. Another listener could compare the transcript to the recording to ensure that they both agree.

One big benefit to recordings is the availability of multiple tracks. If multiple people are talking at once it is a challenge for a court stenographer to accurately transcribe and attribute each person's statements correctly. If each person has a microphone recording a separate track, each statement can be listened to individually.

Another difficulty court reporters face is complicated jargon. Recordings allow reporters to review the statements of expert witnesses and document their testimony correctly.

Finally, any transcriptionist can't do justice to a speaker's tone of voice. Sometimes the words don't reflect the full content of a statement and the way something is said may carry more meaning than the words themselves.

Technology always has been and always will be a strong ally of the court stenographer. How many of us wish we still did our work with pen and paper? Who wants to do real time transcription without the aid of translation software? However, we must not forget that technology doesn't replace the dedicated and disciplined professional behind the machine. Legal transcription services will always need to be done by a human being using the technology to its full capacity.