Only in Masschusetts
By Brett - Fri, 06/20/2008 - 4:37pm.
Only in Massachusetts would we have a rube goldberg court reporter system consisting of a person whose sole job is to speak into a cup with a microphone repeating everything everyone else said, and then later transcribe the audio. Thus offering two opportunities for human error, and no hope for an original record of events. The concept of recording testimony and statements directly via multiple microphones appears to have gone unconsidered.
Incorrect.
Whatever your feelings about the stenomask may be, court reporters (once called stenographers) are required in courts of all 50 states.
Learn up about the stenomask. The court reporter isn't just repeating; s/he is repeating in a specific manner and tone, in order to produce a real-time text record. It is seen by many as faster and more accurate than using a stenotype machine.
If you've got a better method, do share.
multiple microphones?
Watch CourtTV. There are mics everywhere. One in front of the judge, the witness stand, the jury foreman, prosecution, and defense. Toss in a room mic. Boom, done. 6 channels at most, if you want to get fancy and record them all separately. The technology to store and play back that many channels is already prevalent- any home theater system can do it! Most TVs, DVD players, computers...
It would be trivial to record all the audio digitally, and shuffle it off to a server somewhere. Then it could be streamed or listened to immediately after the session by the court reporter (for checking their transcription), the judge, attorneys, press, and (gasp!) even the public.
I'm not saying that transcription is pointless. I'm saying it's silly to have someone sit there and repeat word-for-word what was said into a microphone as your official record, when we have the easy ability to directly record what was said in the first place- thus avoiding two opportunities for human error (or manipulation).
You really don't get it, do you?
You are proposing to have someone do the exact same job as a court reporter without being in court.. Sorry, that's just stupid. Think a bit next time.
More to it than testimony
I have a friend who is trained as a court reporter in NYC. They do more than record what everyone else is saying.
When people speak, it isn't always clear WHO is speaking - stenographers have to make a note of that. When exhibits are introduced, stenographers have to make a note of WHICH item is being shown, its tag number, etc.
It isn't just recording - it is recording and benchmarking and tagging so that a transcript of everything exists, and is marked as to who said what, who did what, what was shown to whom, etc. Much more than a bunch of recording microphones. Ideally, you could stage a nearly fully accurate reenactment/play from a stenographer's notes - many more dimentions than sound are involved.
Microphones also can't immediately answer the judge's question "can you read that back for me, starting with ...", either.
Read the article
It is not a stenographer, but rather a person who identically reiterates aloud what is being said in court. There is no typing going on. She talks into a microphone; a creepy masky looking microphone. Perhaps then there is an additional court reporter typing what the first one says; but what is the point of that?!
The mask
The court reporter transcribes the hearing later by listening to their audio-recording. The comments above are dead on as to the merit of these things. Transcripts made without audio recording tend to be a disaster. Although they could conceivably just record the whole thing (i.e. not speak into the mask and record who is speaking, etc.) in a complex hearing with multiple parties talking (sometimes at once) and multiple exhibits flying around, it would probably get goofed in the transcription without the court reporter commening into the mask. It is kind of creepy though.
Not entirely correct
The new machines have voice-recognition software. The court reporter trains with the voice recognition software. At the end of the session, a text transcript is immediately available. Print out, go home.
read much?
The wikipedia article says it's 95% accurate. That's nowhere nearly good enough to "print out and go home" and it's shockingly bad for something courts rely on. That's a lot of corrections. In fact, it'd be 2-3 wrong words in this paragraph alone.
Tell me again
What is your alternative which is better?
Oh, yeah, you don't have one. You're just pissing and moaning.
Stenography still used
People are still trained to do the typing version of the transcription - it simply isn't as popular with the newly trained reporters and with those who have developed repetitive stress injuries.
Whoever and however the recording is done, it is more than just recording testimony with a microphone - benchmarking of names and testimony, exhibits and how they move around, etc. are included.
If it is voice recognition, if it is type type type, the net effect is that of reproducing the annotated script of a dramatic performance from the performance itself.
Geez
First off, it's "Massachusetts" (re: title). Maybe you need a stenographer with a stenomask.
Secondly, have you ever watched the evening news with the closed captioning turned on? Automatic voice transcription from multiple microphones and sources is AWFUL! Not just bad, not just crappy, not just partly unintelligible, but flat out AWFUL! Some people don't articulate well, people are different distances from microphones, people sound alike, homophones, homonyms, etc. Leaving the official court record to an audio recording of the room is just asking for all sorts of trouble. Having a single voice reiterate and describe the discussion and events of the trial is exactly what is required and it's much faster and easier to say what you want written than to have to type it out as it's happening. While MA may not have automated transcription, some courts do and the software is specialized to the specific stenographer and the user is given shortcuts to say as well to make sure certain speech-to-text problems are taken into account accurately. In those courts, transcripts can be handed out the same day as the stenography happened.
You have no idea what you're ranting about.
Not only in Mass.
The same system was the standard in Missouri when I lived there.
scopistry
The term is... scopist
http://www.scopists.com/Scopistry/
http://www.scopists.com
Those who follow the city budget might want to know why the City of Boston stenographers continue to use out of date software for the stenographic recording of Boston City Council public meetings. Why does the Boston City Council grandfather in the same stenographer over and over again without the proper bidding protocol?... yet other competitive stenographic services use more advanced software that would even have closed captioning on Council webcasts for people with hearing loss
http://www.cityofboston.gov/TridionImages/13_NonMay_Dep_tcm1-873.pdf
Has hell frozen over?
A coherent and relevant comment from The Zak...