There has been much discussion lately of digital and electronic devises replacing jobs in the market place, especially when it comes to court reporting. But not everyone is convinced that digital recording devices are the answer to save money. An article from Radio Iowa talks about why their Court System has decided to wait on the switch to digital.
Some of the major concerns most people have about switching to digital recorders are the accuracy and ease of the transcripting process. While a trained professional real time court reporter can not only accurately hear and transcribe words, they also can assess feeling, and make notes about how a witness responded, not just what was said. Also, another issue with digital recording is variations in pitch, volume, and tone. What is a witness mumbles, or stammers? Will a digital recorder be able to accurately transcribe this?
While some are sold on the idea that digital electronic recording will save money during hard economic times, most feel the switch would be lengthy, complicated, and unreliable. Right now many are committed to fully testing the process with electronic recorders, to completely understand their capabilities and reliability. Ultimately the integrity of the record is key; and at this point many are not convinced a machine can properly upload that duty.
Let us know what you think about switching to electronic recording devices, and what that may mean for court reporters and the legal system.
2 Trackbacks
[...] as we have discussed before, a digital recording is not the answer. A speakerphone device cannot ask a witness to stop and clarify what was said. This is [...]
[...] everyone speaks clearly and a recording device merely preserves the indistinct words, creating an imperfect record. A certified court reporter is a trained listener, hearing the [...]