The
Voice Writing Method of Court
Reporting
Modern Methodologies Go Their Separate
Ways
Some History of ER and Stenomask
"Some of us remember the old way of transcribing our notes: Each word
enunciated clearly into a microphone of a stenorette, with directions
for punctuation, and the dope sheet with all the pertinent spellings of
proper names and unusual terms, and we still had to proofread the
finished product and send it back for corrections."
http://www.ncraonline.org/jcr/0011/pdf/001158.pdf
Just what was a "Stenorette," and what was the "old way?" A
Stenorette was a reel-to-reel Electronic Recorder, similar to a
Dictaphone. Reporters read their notes into the Stenorette's
microphone, along with enunciation and punctuation directions.
The notes were then manually transcribed, generally on an IBM electric
typewriter. If typographical errors were found, the transcriber
most often had to retype the entire page, as many courts did not accept
transcripts marked with corrections. The "E" and "R" are
capitalized in the first sentence because there's no escaping it; a
form of ER was built into the reporting process before the advent of
CAT, or computer-aided transcription. Before the Stenorette,
there were wax-cylinder recorders and purple or red belt loop recorders
>From the mid 1930s to the advent of the stenotype CAT system, the
prevalent method for keeping up with demanding workloads was to dictate
your shorthand or stenotype notes.. Another method involved the
use of "note readers," individuals skilled in reading stenotype, but
not stenotypists themselves. The note reader produced transcripts
directly from the notes, with no need for tapes. A person could
be either a "typing" or "dictating" court reporter. The typing
reporter manually typed the transcript directly from a reading of the
steno notes. A dictating reporter's process, the aforementioned
"old way," was generally the following:
1.) A court reporter took down proceedings via pen or manual stenotype
machine.
2.) Back at the office, the reporter dictated the words onto a magnetic
media reel-to-reel tape in the Stenorette electronic recording machine.
3.) "Transcribers" or "operators," then produced a draft transcript of
the speaker's words using the magnetic media file. In all cases,
the need for accuracy required that the operators' draft transcripts be
checked against the paper notes. The proofing and correction
process by the dictating reporter could become quite arduous.
It generally took 2 to 3 hours to transcribe 1 hour of testimony.
A fast typist, working from an electronic recording, could reduce that
time to around an hour and a half. A typing reporter could put
out roughly 800 to 1000 pages per month, whereas a dictating reporter
could produce -- and bill for -- 1500 to 2000 pages per month; those
who used note readers, even more.
The use of multiple reporters, dictation, and several fast transcribers
provided what was known as "fast copy" or "daily copy," a system which
could produce transcripts within 30 to 45 minutes of the words' being
spoken. This system of reporters and staff, working in shifts, is
still used on the floor of the U.S. Senate in daily copy, and in
"dailies" produced at freelance reporting firms.
Enter Horace Webb's Stenomask
A Gregg pen writer in the 1940s, Horace Webb was considered a
"dictating" reporter. He wanted to eliminate redundancies in the
process, streamlining efficiency and getting transcripts finished
sooner. His vision of the court reporting process allowed court
reporters to dictate directly during proceedings, obviating the need to
reproduce the words twice. Here's the process of the day in which
Mr. Webb worked:
1. Reporter takes down (writes or stenotypes) the proceeding.
2. Reporter dictates notes onto Stenorette ER device.
3. "Transcribers," "operators" or "note readers" -- typists, all; those
who worked with ER machinery -- produced the transcripts.
4. Court reporters reviewed the transcripts, making corrections as
necessary.
Usage of Mr. Webb's Stenomask would combine Steps 1 and 2, which the
reporter would do in the courtroom.
The Fork Starts Here
So why sideline a streamlined process that would
dramatically increase a reporter's monthly page count, and therefore,
income?
First, the relationship between
reporters and typists was often tempestuous. In the workflow,
reporters' income depended in large part on how many pages were completed, not how many dictation
media were "turned in to the typist." Add to that the complex mix
of the human condition involving typists working for
several reporters. There was perception among many that "they
made your life
miserable and only cooperated when it was to their advantage,"
reinforcing an "us-versus-them" feeling.
Second, A sizable amount of the reporter's training, continuing
education, and experience was in areas other than those required for
reporting. Over time, a reporter hones his or her quality of
product into a high art form, totally unique to that person. It
has been this way for centuries, regardless of method. In the
courtroom, the reporter applied all his or her skill and talents to
Getting It Down and doing so correctly.
However, the reporter did exactly the opposite for the typist; Gregg
and Pitman reporters simply dictated the English results of their years
of training and experience required to get it all down at courtroom
speed. Imagine having to apply so much intelligence and hard work
to take it down in your notes, only to reverse the process by dictating
notes back into English for the typist. Stenotypists perhaps made
more use of note readers than did pen writers. Note readers were
themselves a group of highly-skilled people. It must be
noted that relationships between reporters and typists or note readers
were not universally adversarial. However, pride and exclusivity
were huge factors which contributed to interpersonal friction between
court reporters and the "others-who-worked-with-the-ER
machinery." This is one of the main seeds that produced the
chasm between today's stenotype and voice-writing court reporters.
Control of the art was also a major factor. If reporters were
going to go straight to the repetition of English in production; that
is, if they were going to simply dictate English right in the
courtroom, then how then could they convince their administrators that
their salaries were justified? After all, the fruits of all that
schooling, and time invested in creating speed and a high-quality
product, were intangible. How could court reporters keep
administrators convinced that only reporters, and not the
"others-who-worked-with-the-ER-machinery" met the high standards of the
courts? Simple: maintain the Berlin Wall of impenetrable mystery
that was both pen shorthand and stenotypy. Keep the script,
whether written or typewritten, unintelligible to all but the
individual
reporter. This barrier maintained job security.
Control in another way played a large part. "Once the machine was
developed, the end was near for the pen writers. There were
simply too many machine writers being produced and accepted in the
courts," said a senior New York court reporter.
Precedent for Assimilation Set
Many years ago, NCRA (then the National Shorthand Reporters Association)
exercised its duty to fully investigate any technology, including Ward
S. Ireland's stenotype machine, which could impact the court reporters
of the day. Indeed, "Ireland's first production model Stenotype
machine enabled inexperienced operators to attain and often break speed
championship records."
--http://www.ncraonline.org/about/history/CourtReporter.shtml For
many years, stenotypists, the minority within the reporting community,
were not allowed to join NSRA. Upon determination that it would
be widely used in the field, NSRA assimilated the stenotype method, in
its own best interests of keeping the profession alive.
Finally in the 1930s, stenotypists were allowed into NSRA. When
they were admitted, speed contests were discontinued for a time, out of
concern that stenotypists would dominate them. By the 1940s, it
had become obvious that stenotypy was the future of court
reporting. Pursuant to the assimilation of stenotypists,
definitions pertaining to the profession were adjusted to
accommodate the new typing machine method. The greater NSRA
community renamed the "stenotype machine," as a "writer." And the
word "stenographer" was redefined, expanded to include
stenotypists. The stenotype method would be considered "writing,"
as a form of "stenography." Eventually, the word "Shorthand,"
itself, was replaced in the association's name. Indeed, a new
political hierarchy was in the offing, so this was not the time to
introduce yet another sea change which might frustrate the aspirations
of those newly accepted stenotypists within the majority pen-writing
national organization who felt that eminence was finally at their
doorstep.
Precedent Declined by the New
Generation
When the new stenotype method of reporting took center stage, most
made use of ER to do the job. Between the advent of stenotype and
its successor, Computer Aided Transcription, animosities existed
between reporters and their
ER-laden typists, which lasted many decades, fueled by pride and
exclusivity. When CAT arrived on the scene, stenotypists were
finally free of the ER typists. The institutional animosity
directed toward those who used ER was simply redirected toward voice
writers, because non-CAT voice writers spoke into a recorder, using the
magnetic media file contained on cassette tapes to produce transcripts.
New Organization Born
Horace Webb eventually gave up seeking parity with his stenotype
reporter cousins, and circa 1967, founded the National Stenomask
Verbatim Reporters Association, known today as the National Stenomask
Verbatim Reporters Association. Webb knew that computer
technology would eventually produce voice recognition. Like
Alexander Graham Bell, whose work on voice recognition led to the
telephone, Horace Webb was correct.