Spenser Skates on Voice Recognition: A Problem Where There’s No Clear Right Answer — & How I Wrote About That 5 Years Ago

A wonderful reader sent me this article quoting ex-Sonalight CEO Spenser Skates. Notably:

“We spent a month just talking and exploring different ideas. You really want to find a problem that fits your strengths, weaknesses, and interests. Voice recognition was almost too hard technically to solve. It’s like this probabilistic problem where there’s not a clear right answer. Analytics, to the average engineer, it’s a pretty hard problem — but to us, it was a cakewalk, because we were algorithm guys. Building a distributed data store was very straightforward for us. It’s like ‘OK, that’s a solvable problem with a clear answer. If we do it, people want it. Great, let’s go to work on that.’ It was a million times easier.” Ex-Sonalite CEO Spenser Skates speaks about why him and his co-founder moved from “solving” voice recognition to “solving” analytics.

Let me get some self-aggrandizement in.

Half a decade ago, I wrote that computers only do what you give them instructions to do, and explained that there are solvable and insolvable problems. And I explained that voice recognition is a solvable problem, but that it will take indeterminate time and resources to solve. The CEOs, salespeople, and software engineers of the world know this already. They have probably known it decades longer than the vast majority of the population. Despite that, they lie and say their products are better than they are so that they can try to recoup the investor money they’re burning on what is — like Mr. Money Bags just told you — a “probabilistic problem where there’s not a clear right answer.” Said another way, some of the brightest minds on this planet could not, and still cannot, figure this problem out 100% despite the billions of dollars spent to solve it. It’s not quite as much as it would be to solve world hunger, but let’s just say we could’ve solved some pretty big problems with the time and money spent on “get computer to know what I say.”

Then journalists lap up the bullshit and ride the hype train, because who’s going to challenge Microsoft? Who’s going to challenge Google? Who’s going to challenge these rich and powerful entities and power players that make money off of the ignorance and fanciful beliefs of a population that believes with all its heart that tech will solve all our problems and grow exponentially into some kind of singularity (partial joke)?

Stenography’s citizen journalist remains reliant on your eyes. Please continue to send me stuff like this. I’m grateful.

P.S.

Rant that I felt better for a post script.

It is not the job of journalists to be seekers of the truth. They have become stenographers for the rich and powerful. Stenographers are uniquely positioned to fill the gap. I dare say that, just by presenting what two different sides say, we’d be doing more journalism. Because I’m at a stage in my life where I’ve told multiple journalists about the blatant fraud being committed and they’ve either danced around the issue and eliminated what I told them from the article, like Maia Spoto did, or participated in “journalistic equalizing,” as Steve Lerner did. De facto silencing of the truth through blatant and indefensible lies of omission. Could be their editors. Could be the culture of their outlets. Could be that journalists discriminate against people like me that are open and honest about mental health struggles and successful ongoing treatment. Could even be that some journalists are independently wealthy and see people like me as being against wealthy people, and they don’t like that. The nuance of “no, I don’t hate people with money for having money. I know people who are better off than I ever will be and we’re cool because they don’t steal from their employees or engage in schemes to defraud thousands of jobseekers” is often lost on my detractors. I’ve been told maybe our field isn’t exciting enough to write about. But at a certain point it’s almost comical to look back at the number of journalists that uncritically published about our labor shortage only to turn around and ignore the fraud claims.

What can I do but publish my findings and see what happens? Maybe someday court reporters will realize that they give millions of dollars to the National Court Reporters Association each year and it was ready, willing, and did actually watch the Speech-to-Text Institute flood the market with lies and set the stage for stenographer jobs to be eliminated. By contrast, court reporters gave me $10,000 and I made sure the STTI got sued and shut down its website.

It’s kind of like how I feel about CoverCrow. More adoption of the cause would benefit us. Issues could be worked out. Once the thing became self-sustaining, it would give working reporters a lot more power because it would decentralize the method by which they find and agree to jobs. It’s just math and reasoning.

Similarly, if there were more widespread adoption of my sort of brand of journalism, there would be significant systemic changes. It’s a power dynamic thing. Without checks, wealth concentrates at the top. The top then uses its power to effectively control government regulators (corporate capture) This is the basis of logic for our antitrust laws. That concentration is currently what’s happening all across America (corporate consolidation).

In a functioning democratic republic, the government enforces the laws that stop wealth from concentrating to that very dangerous point. If the government failed to do so, the free press would jump in and destroy every single politician involved in the wholesale selling of the country (Citizens United & beyond). The government isn’t enforcing the law and the free press is literally actively assisting in the fuckification of America by blacking out opposition voices, effectively handing a monopoly to “the concentrated wealth” with regard to the narrative that the public hears.

It’s said that Einstein wrote about a time when the very rich would control the means of communication and it would be impossible for citizens to make informed decisions. Democracy would be broken. According to Full Fact, this is not true. Einstein wrote that that had already happened in 1949.

We have had over 70 years of corporate consolidation since then.

(And Robert Reich states in my fuckification link that corporate consolidation costs the average American family over $5,000 a year. So if anyone here thinks that something that costs the average family over 5% of their income is a political idea not worth covering, I respectfully disagree. Thanks again, reader!)

Congress Abolished In Favor of the New Corporate Republic*

Using Wolf PAC’s constitutional convention model, a move meant to stop the unlimited flow of corporate money into politics that occurred after the Citizens United ruling, the legislatures of the United States have convened a constitutional convention to introduce Amendment 28, the institution of the New Corporate Republic. The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, and all other constitutional amendments except for the Second Amendment are hereby abolished. The S&P 500 will now control all functions, agencies, and responsibilities of the United States government and state government functions, and shareholders will be the only vote that counts. Elon Musk has already bought and moved into the White House, as it no longer serves a governmental function. Capitol Hill has been renamed Capital Hill. Former Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas went on record today, stating “wow, I took so many bribes from these people. I never thought they’d come for my job too.”

The new corporate government declared the United States is now a compulsory consumerist state. Anyone that does not buy at least one thing a day faces an automatic fine that cannot be waived. Those that do not pay the fine or violate the law again will be forced to work for free indefinitely or face summary execution for being an unproductive member of society that doesn’t contribute their fair share™️. Advocates for the poor and disabled object, but we didn’t like them when this was a free country so there’s no chance we’re excepting them from this rule now.

Free speech is suspended pending further changes to the law. Any expression that disparages the new government or any business interest is illegal and will lead to you and your family disappearing mysteriously in the middle of the night. A part-time government spokesperson issued a statement today, “the new rules are far more protective of our economy. If you wouldn’t say it to your boss or at the workplace, just don’t say it at all, because anything you’ve bought in the last 10 years is listening and you will face consequences.” The spokesperson further clarified that AI automatic speech recognition would be used to detect anti-business rhetoric. When asked how the system would safeguard against the constant errors in speech recognition technology, the spokesperson added “oh, it won’t. It’s much too expensive to hire people to double check. I suggest all of you make as little noise as possible.”

The song Beast by Nico Vega and any non-corporate media has also been outlawed. People suspected of producing music will face a convenience charge of $29.99 per song, and a song has been defined under the new law as “one minute of continuous or semi-continuous sound.” All other media will face a surcharge of $0.67 per second.

Our national animal has been changed to the AR-15. Citizens are encouraged to buy as many guns as possible, but first must be fitted with a brain-reader chip to scan for thoughts of harming business interests. Harming anything else is fair game, because it will likely stimulate the healthcare, construction, and insurance economies, making us a better nation.

Public schools will be closed nationwide over the next three weeks as the government decides which ones will be allowed to continue to operate as private institutions and which ones will be demolished so that the land can be repurposed for commercial and/or industrial development. Neighborhoods with high minority concentrations are said to be the most likely candidates for pollution-creating structures and carcinogenic products, because keeping that stuff away from whites ensures their obedience and apathy.

All citizens will be issued $100,000 of debt at birth. Immigrants face a $3,000,000 debt. If regular payments are not made by the debtor or their parents/guardians, the debtor will be seized by authorities.

Courts are suspended. Criminal actions will be punished with slavery, just like when we were a free country. Civil actions against business or economic interests are dismissed.

The American right to unionize and discuss pay shall be abolished. All unions and nonprofits, including religious institutions, are ordered to turn over all assets to the S&P 500 for repurposing and/or resale.

Anti-corporate terrorist Christopher Day will have his public execution live streamed, and the advertising revenue will be used to hunt down other dissidents. When asked what his crimes were, it was revealed that he wrote a blog called Stenonymous that spoke out against corporate misconduct. Asked how that makes one a terrorist, the government responded, “everyone we don’t like is a terrorist, just like when we were a free country.” Anyone else with a history of anti-corporate activism may opt out of public execution by adding $10,000,000 to their citizen debt.

U$A military spending will be increased by a factor of 10 so that the new corporate government can complete the Happy Consumer Satellite Array by SpaceX, which will help regulate human minds worldwide to be subservient to the New World Order, moving products from ownership to subscription-based. You will own nothing and you will be happy.

We are Earth United, brought to you by the New Incorporated States of America. Let freedom ring.

*None of this is true. It’s part of Stenonymous Satire Weekends, a project to help expose what’s occurring in my industry. I’m a blogger in my field of court reporting, and we’ve got a bit of corporate misconduct going on. I started publishing about it actively in September 2021 and we tried reporting it to government agencies that are supposed to handle that kind of thing like the FTC and New York State Attorney General. The FTC issued a weak statement about gig workers and the NYS Attorney General doesn’t investigate single complaints. It was kind of interesting for me because, being a court reporter, I was a big believer in the system. But the government at every level has shown that it has zero intention of doing anything that might harm business interests, even if they’re violating antitrust laws, deceptive business practices laws, and false advertising laws.

As an American, I’m disgusted. We rely on our government to enforce our laws equally. Imagine if the police didn’t investigate single complaints? “I just got robbed.” Sorry, we don’t investigate single complaints. “My brother was murdered.” Sorry, we don’t investigate single complaints. Well, you know what? Maybe the police are like that too, because a few months ago I met a man that says the authorities are ignoring his ex’s perjury and de facto kidnapping of his daughter. There’ll be a post about that someday soon, but the point is that we have a very real problem in this country of capitulation to anybody with money and chronic underfunding of government agencies meant to create balance in society.

And the “free press” that we rely on as Americans to report on a corrupt or inept government/organizations? It relies on corporate advertisers, so it’s not in the business of reporting on corporate fraud and, in our case, just repeats the corporate narrative of a court reporter shortage. So you literally have a situation where 18,000 to 30,000 good jobs are threatened with replacement by low-paying jobs due to the deceit of a few powerful corporations and the government and media side with the liars through their inaction, which will also likely lead to the degradation of court record accuracy and increase inequality when it comes to the recording of “minority speech” or dialects.

Billions of dollars lost to wage theft, but the media’s more concerned with what Elon Musk has for breakfast and our elected officials are basically using their offices for self-enrichment. Journalists that parrot the government or press releases have long been lambasted as stenographers. Hilariously, it’s the stenographers that are trying to bring you the truth.

If you don’t think any of this is a problem, I don’t know what to tell you. The government has signaled to corporate interests that it will not enforce the law against them. What happens when you tell a criminal their actions are consequence-free as long as they do it in a polite, sneaky fashion?

I don’t know exactly how to solve all this, but I’m willing to be a part of the solution. For starters, here’s a song I had commissioned to speak out against the corporate consolidation and corruption of the United States. Enjoy. If you want to throw a few dollars my way to help this reach more people, feel free to use the donation box on the front page of Stenonymous.com.

Patriots Against Corporatism Song by Anoynmous – Commissioned by Stenonymous.com

Patriots Against Corporatism Song

›.wav

$1.00

Proof that the AG said they don’t investigate single complaints.

AG NY Letter Image Download

Steno: It’s Like Believing Your Husband When He Says “She Meant Nothing to Me.”

In our field, we face two concurrent issues: Communicating to each other that many court reporting companies are not being honest with us about their intentions for the industry and communicating to consumers that their choice as consumers is under attack. I recently came across the following post by Jeanese Johnson. Jeanese’s post is probably the most on-the-nose portrayal of the situation for communicating it to each other that I’ve seen, and I am very grateful to her for allowing me to host it here on Stenonymous.

By Jeanese Johnson:

When a digital-supporting company tells you that they only use the digiz for shit jobs you don’t want and you believe it, that’s akin to your husband saying… “Yeah, she didn’t mean anything to me.”

When a digital-employing company tells you they “sparingly” use digitals ONLY when you’re not available, ask them – “Why do you call them ‘reporters,’ though?”

If you “really” wanted us to be on the higher echelon, wouldn’t you call us “Certified/Licensed Court Reporters” and them… Well… something else?

Why aren’t there two tiers of pricing? Does the one tier — our tier — “Cure” the “shortage”? (I call BULLSHIT!)

Ask them, “Why do you charge the same as a real court reporter?”

Ask them, “Don’t you think that’s confusing the marketplace?”

Ask them, “Did you really want to send a first-year reporter to a multi realtime patent case?” (We don’t believe you) Because first-year reporters need the smaller jobs. And not all reporters only want all-day. Not all reporters are realtime. And the smartest reporter I ever met stood next to me in court and said, “Yeah, at this stage, I like short… all day long…” and I was too new and too stupid to know what she was talking about. And I still admire her to this moment.

Tell them that what they think is a “shit” job is one that many “real” court reporters prefer; i.e., short, light, fast, easy – over so we can pick up our kids. And tell them that we don’t buy their “new explanation” for why they’re raking in the money on cheap digital – I mean — excuse me/pardon me — “curing the shortage” by piling on millions and buying up companies — I mean — “Looking out for ‘precious’ us” – who “don’t want to take the shit jobs.” 🙄

Ask them if they network the job to an agency that does have reporters available.

I just attended a meeting where Esquire has purchased TSG Reporting.

Esquire came out and said they were going to address “the elephant in the room” (Hmmm… I remember saying these exact words, and I promptly got kicked out of the Veritext court group — by “accident” 😉 ) Can’t believe after all we know those reporters are still helping them. So sad. They must have stock in Veritext.

Anyway, I found the Esquire group to be just as I expected.

I found them somewhat phoney; i.e., “We LOVE court reporters! You’re our first priority! We’re nothing without you!”

If you’re not the type to believe “She didn’t mean anything to me…” then ask them to prove it. Ask them to see the invoices where a recorder person (because, remember, if you agree to work for them, you’ve already said they should not call them court reporters – because that’s insulting to everyone and confusing to the marketplace) took one of those dreadful, awful public meetings (the “new” reason for the using digitals – it’s not because we have remote now and better coverage – it’s NOT that they get to keep copy orders and all the profits like it was a real reporter) and show how much the client paid – then… that’s when you see why they use them. 💡 And that’s when you’ll see that it really did mean something. 💔

There was nothing in the meeting redeeming. There was nothing in the meeting inspiring – even though the presenters seemed to think so. Esquire — through all of its Gallo iterations — came to the meeting knowing how we see them – and that’s why it was yucky – and nothing was done to address… the “yucky in the room.”

Esquire was asked if they have CSRs transcribe the fake proceedings. And they answered yes. They seemed proud of that – where we’re likely disgusted.

Esquire admitted “vaguely” that they “only use digital in five states…” It was peppered down.

We should ask them: “Which five states?”

My direct question along with who was going to be their RIC in July and do they use digital in California — was not answered.

So looks like TSG will be removed from the job boards if we do not have this answer.

I understand the “get out” move – plenty have done it. And all have a right to do so. No problems there. Congratulations to Rixon – would have been nice if he was on the call – but I suppose he’s already in the Bahamas! Salut! 💃

In parting: They said their attys know and agree to using a DIGITAL REPORTER – they seemed also proud of this — there were all smiles on the face of the Esquire personnel – kind of creepy smiles, though – Why would you be proud of substituting your “precious” <— and they used that word —> court reporters for fake court reporters? And why are you okay with the marketplace being okay with this?

Because of the legacy that Veritext taught you. That’s the answer. They’re teaching all of these companies how to do it – and Esquire one-upped them by at least explaining to their clients that they’re recording. And Esquire claimed to have top-of-the-line technology and all the best stuff – they were also quite proud – while reporters sat and listened and asked the most degrading questions like we were still in the year 2000 — “When we get assigned, how…” “Will our rates be…”

So powerless they were.

So you’ll say, “But, Jeanese, you don’t want to take the shit public meeting either. We read your post about the first agency you worked with used to send you to the downtown L.A. Metro meetings and it was God-awful.”

You’re right. Absolutely. I have no fight there.

But I wasn’t recording anything. I was writing my ass off. And the agency I worked for didn’t charge rates for “just recording it” while using a licensed reporter – and keep the difference in profits.

Esquire said they don’t use people off the street. Hmmm, maybe they heard our complaint about CraigsList. They said their people have degrees and are AAERT certified.

And this tells me they’ve also been listening to our complaints about: Well, we have a license, so… why? What makes this okay?

But they haven’t told us that they denounce this — they just keep saying… “She didn’t mean anything to me.”

That doesn’t sit well with me. I’d still want to know how much a “degreed individual” is paid. Don’t just shake your head and agree to everything they say.

Their faces showed — it’s all bullshit.

If CR is the best – show me by only using CRs –

Or open another company and call them “We’re too lazy – so we just record it!” Company – and charge accordingly.

Then at least I could respect it. And the clients would know the difference. And we’d all have a job.

I saw a couple of reporters on the meeting nodding their head when Esquire was explaining their position…

This scares me.

Do we REALLY believe that a company that has people with degrees and higher education and employs salespeople and et cetera, et cetera, can’t think of a solution other than “recording it”?

That’s the best they got?

LOL.

They can think of marketing tools. And they can bring tumblers and calendars – but they can’t fight for reciprocation? They can’t schedule around like interpreters do? Like doctors do? Like any valued — pardon me, excuse me — “TRULY” valued human would to your company? Really? We’re “highly valued…” but there’s just this little “work around…” “No, but really, You’re valued.” And… and… it doesn’t really mean anything…

Images for search engines:

Digital court reporting deception commentary by Jeanese Johnson

October Occupations 2019

Before we get into this post I just want to say I updated the old Get A Job post to include the exams page of NYSUCS. I still say that every jobseeker in New York should be checking the pages linked there every 15 to 30 days to be safe. Share findings. Be committed to keeping everyone up to date. If everyone is talking about where the work is, nobody’s left in the dark.

Even though this page launches October 1, postings are only current as of September 30.

DANY is still hiring for their grand jury reporter position. It’s a great job. Definitely give it a shot.

Special Narcotics Prosecutor, as I recall, had a posting for one grand jury reporter. Now there’s a posting for two. I say that if you haven’t applied yet, it’s your lucky day, go for it.

The state court system is still accepting applications for the provisional court reporter job. If you didn’t take the test, it still might make sense to apply. If they didn’t get enough passes on the civil service exam, they’re going to need you.

Southern District, that’s federal court, is still looking for a reporter. Don’t let this great opportunity go to waste if you’ve got the certifications or skill necessary to work with SDNY.

There are over ten vacancies federally all around the country. If New York’s not where your heart is, no big deal, but you’re not allowed to leave (joke).

Plaza continues to keep a posting for court reporting and English instructors.

New Jersey has apparently started hiring for the first time in a long time. I had posted this on Facebook but not on Stenonymous. Hopefully the government has realized the inherent value of having someone personally responsible for making the record.

Freelancers, I know that there’s often not a lot of postings on here with regard to work for you. I will work on something that might help there. Until then, you’re free to check out my recent post on historic data and inflation, as it impacts every dollar we make every day we breathe. I have been getting emails from Magna claiming over $100 in bonus fees. Now that I think about it, this probably gives you a clue what’s actually being charged for appearance fees, and a peak into the law of supply and demand. You’re in demand. Your skills are in demand. Act accordingly, do great work, and make a great record.

Fun fact. In the editor this post has no bullet points. In the preview it does. Which version will everyone see? That is the question. If you’ve ever wondered why some posts seem to have bizarre formatting, I blame computers.

Shortage Solutions 10: Contract or Employment

Can you believe this blog has covered 10 ideas for addressing the shortage? Time flies. Having given the whole court reporting shortage issue some more brainstorming, it’s worth bringing up for discussion the solutions that will follow. As always, happy to have comment on this issue. First, contractual agreements. In the field today, many reporters work under a verbal agreement, or a very informal email or rate sheet agreement. Even in places where independent contractors are required to have contracts, much of the business is contracted verbally or less formally.

Anecdotally, there’s something respectable about putting things in writing. People are more likely to live up to their word when there are clear terms of engagement. Need a freelancer to be on call to cover? Get it in writing. Throw them a little consideration (money) for their availability. Create easy-to-understand terms and expectations on availability. Create fair and realistic penalties for breach of contract on either side, or remedial terms that both sides can live with.

That lets me move on to another thought process. There is nothing in US law, to my knowledge, that prohibits a company from hiring employees and paying them a per-page commission or per diem rate. Pretty much no reporter makes less than minimum wage, so compliance with minimum wage laws is trivial. What is stopping a company from shifting its workforce from 1099 reporters to employees? Nothing. Nothing but a different set of paperwork and some accounting changes. Compliance with workers compensation laws may need a little creative insuring to allow reporters to transcribe from home if they choose to give employees that option. But this does not seem like an impossibility, merely a challenge for the entrepreneurial to overcome.

Why these solutions? Frankly, one of the issues with shortage boils down to the inconsistency of freelance reporting. If reporting firms nail down some availability, via employment contract or independently-contracted agreement, they can have a more realistic idea of how many reporters they have versus how many they need. Businesses survive and thrive off of mastering their staffing needs. Reporting businesses will be no different, and in the end will rise and fall based on their ability to meet demand. In this case, the demand being the service that so many stenographic reporters are ready, willing, and able to provide.

Can’t Outspend? Outsell.

When many of us were in school we were given a line, steno sells itself. Many of us can probably relate to that. Most steno companies, upon hearing you’re a professional stenographer, will give you a shot. Many of us in New York came out during a big slump (2010) where steno wasn’t selling itself, but even then, it was trivial to get work. All we had to do was say we’d been working three months, and “they’d” go from sorry no work for you to “oh, here are the keys to the kingdom.” Not all of us knew it, but that’s how it was. Agency owners are good at reading confidence, and what we’re offered is often linked directly to our confidence level.

Of course, the following may be an incorrect assumption on my part, but bear with me: We have entered an era where steno is not selling itself. Company owners are being pulled into the mindset that the voice recognition is “good enough,” and some of the major players, like Veritext, have been pushing recording.

I should note, in full disclosure, that I have not been able to corroborate what I’m about to say with documents or pictures as I usually do. It’s pulled from the social media sphere, so consider it anecdotal for now, and do not be surprised if agencies start railing against social media. Even as some claim that Veritext sent an email stating they were not using recording in states like New Jersey, others have come forward across social media to say yes, this is being done behind our backs. Many of us are reportedly asking lawyers what they’re seeing, and they are seeing digital getting peddled to them relentlessly.

So what do we do when we have major players putting their resources into our replacement? Who here thinks they have more money that Veritext or their owners? Hopeless, some would say. But there is something that many reporters are realizing: This alleged shortage is a great time get private clients and begin new businesses. If Veritext or some entity swears they can’t get a stenographer, some lawyers have allegedly called their insurers and gotten authorization to use a local stenographer or stenographic firm. All their marketing moves and salespeople count for nothing if a stenographer finds themselves in the right place at the right time.

We’re the boots on the ground. We have more contact with law office staff and employees. We have the keys to the kingdom. But the people at the top have made it very clear that they’ll do whatever is convenient for them. It’s time we do the same for the survival of our industry. We don’t work for them? Try it. It might just give us access to their clients. We work for them? Guess who already has access.

Even if we don’t want to handle private clients, we could always network with an existing firm owner out there and get them clients in exchange for the work or a share. If we’re even moderately successful, big companies will be offering to buy back their business from us in a few years, and the field will be a lot healthier once the market share is spread out. Our actions determine the future. The conversation today is steno or digital. Tomorrow it just might be stay steno or slam sand.

Shortage Solutions 8: Retirement

The document that alerted us to an impending shortage was the 2013 Ducker Report. In there, it told us that in about 20 years from then, a very large percentage of reporters would be retiring. Off the top of my head, I think it was as high as 70 percent, but you’re free to read it. That point is about 10 to 14 years from today.

Obviously, this brings great opportunity, because if supply can’t meet demand, the price for the service should rise. In many markets, it has risen, especially where reporters have pushed to be paid more. Some reporters are getting out there and grabbing their own private clients because it’s a seller’s market. In response to the shortage, the field had a great many recruitment ideas including A to Z, Project Steno, Open Steno, and many schools got online to reach a larger pool of students.

A big issue for us has been if enough jobs go completely uncovered, there are interests in the market ready to jump on that and say we don’t need stenography. We can use digital recording. We can use AI transcription. We can use whatever. Veritext, from my perspective, led this charge. Notably, they’re also putting money into stenographic initiatives, but this seems to be a clear case of hedging bets in case our commitment to what we do beats the money being poured into our replacement.

So here’s where we stand: We have a large group of people slated to retire. Do we tell them not to retire? No chance. But we can collectively start spreading the word that the retired are valuable. We had this push maybe a year ago in New York. Our Association, NYSCRA, didn’t give retired reporters or educators power. Not because of any ill will or resentment, but because of a simple bylaws issue. As luck had it, who had the most time to take part in and help shape up ideas? The educators and retired! So we took a stand and voted to give them equal voting power and right to be on the board.

Let’s face facts. If we are working 9 to 6 and then going home to transcribe for an hour, it leaves us very little time to advocate for this field. We may not be able to financially take time away from work or training to be a recruiter or voice in support of this field. We may not be able to advocate for others or mentor students. It’s a great time to consider forming programs and workshops for the retired who want to remain in the field as advocates. Look at the lobbying industry. Somebody works in a field for 30 years, a private interest or association grabs them up, and then they are the spokesperson who goes out and educates politicians on the issue — sometimes for big money.

If you’re retired, if you’re about to retire, or if you know someone about to retire, and especially if you’re somewhat of an altruist, you’ve got a chance to make a difference. Anything from a kind word to a student to full-blown involvement on a board or in a professional management corporation can change outcomes. As a matter of fact, a lot of these large corporations keep veteran stenographers at the head of their court reporting programs. Even traditionally transcription-oriented companies, like Escribers, had a stenographer in management. There’s no reason why the retired can’t, if they are so inclined, put down the machine, pick up the phone, and continue to make money from this field, for this field, and grow it in a way that keeps the career bridge they just crossed standing firm.

To Our Litigators

RE: Stenographic Reporters

If you’re reading, I’m going to hope you’re the kind of lawyer that we all look up to. You’re responsive to clients, you’re honest with potential clients about what you can do for them, and you’re ready when it comes to filings, motions, discovery, or trial. Maybe you’re the one at your firm tailoring your service to your client’s budget, or maybe you oversee someone doing that for you. But the end is the same, giving the consumer the best value for the budget.

That’s what urges me to write today. There has been a lot said about “AI” transcription and digital recording versus stenographic reporting. There has been a lot said in my field about the Ducker Report and a forecasted shortage of court reporters. Some brave companies are turning to remote reporting, where legal, to allow a stenographer to appear remotely. Other courageous reporters are doubling their workload to meet your demand.

There is one solution that’s come out known as digital reporting. The main idea is that someone will record the proceedings, run it through a computer program, and then someone will fix up what the computer does. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this is what we stenographers actually do. The major difference is we are stenographically recording (typing!) every word, and the computer is accepting that stenographic word and turning it into your English transcript.

The bottom line is: It simply ends up being more efficient to do it our way. One person, perhaps two, can stenographically record and transcribe an entire proceeding and have it to you that night or the next morning. For your dollar, there’s just not better value. Stenographers type four to five times faster than your average typist, so to finish the same proceeding, we are talking about four or five times the usual turnaround time for transcribers, or four or five times the staffing. Take the number of stenographers you have today, and multiply that number by 3, 4, or 5. If you think there’s a shortage and/or workflow issues now, imagine a world where you need five court reporters to put together your one proceeding. Imagine a world where the transcript is questioned and you need to bring those people in to testify instead of one stenographer.

Trust me when I say the firms switching to digital reporting or demanding you change your deposition notices to allow digital reporters are not saving you or your clients any money. Ever notice how there are almost never prices posted online for services? That’s because most of these companies act as middlemen. They make an agreement with you or the insurer, and then they make an agreement with us, the stenographers or transcribers, and they keep what’s in the middle. It’s really that simple. I would not be surprised, as a stenographer, to learn that I only made $3.25 a page on some of my old depositions with 25 cents per copy while the agency I worked with charged whatever they charged. 5? 6? 7? I don’t know. I only know that when I consulted a lawyer, the lawyer wanted almost 15 dollars a page if my case went to depositions.

I’ve been a stenographer for a long time, and I see two roads that you, the litigators, may take. You can let the sellers decide the market, and eventually stenographers won’t be an option, or you can make a sustained demand for a stenographic reporter at every dep. When lawyers start turning to direct market apps like Appear Me, Expedite Legal, and NexDep to get stenographers, those agencies pushing the digital and AI will jump on board and do whatever it takes to increase your supply of stenographers and get your business back.

Stenographers have been serving the legal community for decades. There’s been a push in recent years to do away with us because of a public perception that our methods are antiquated. Ironically, the people leading this charge are the companies we trusted with selling our services. So to our litigators: You now know all I know, and the customer is always right. Which will you choose?

NCRA: Our Money’s On Stenographers

There’s been a huge spike in stenographer association activity across the country. FCRA got part of the Florida legislature to consider a bill to create a court reporter registry, MCRA put out a town hall meeting about digital recording, but thanks to the crippling weather conditions around, that got canceled for now. MCRA also announced the CSR exam — free for members! CalDRA, as described a few posts ago, threw together a war chest and started producing pro steno stickers and flyers. VCRA got in on the war call and also began producing pro steno flyers. Sorry to anyone I missed — write to us all in the comments below — but the bottom line is associations have really put their mouth where our money is and began advocating full blast for stenography.

That brings us to today. We don’t speak for NCRA here on Stenonymous, but we’ll give you the facts and the inferences we draw from them. NCRA just announced unequivocally that whatever funding the corporate sponsorship program brought — it’s not worth the appearance of bias to membership. Your membership and participation is worth more to this board and body than corporate dollars. Your time, your talent, your questions, and your concerns are valid. They ended the corporate partnership program. That’s a big move.

No offense meant to the companies that are all about steno. We know that you are out there and you do a lot for us. We want you to keep plugging away and advocating for steno. We want you at our conventions. But NCRA was having a serious public relations nightmare. Some partners, like Veritext, were pushing so hard on the digital reporting, that it became completely incompatible with NCRA’s core mission of the stenographer.

If you think this is the right path, it’s time to consider renewing membership, writing them, and telling them what would make your experience even better. There are many thousands of us, and as I have shown mathematically in the past, just a fraction of the field in any market could shift the playing field from zero association activity to full-scale lobbying campaign to raise awareness about steno and/or get legislators to enact sensible law regarding the record.

It’s all there in yellow and black. This is your NCRA. What do we do with things we care about? We maintain them. We improve them. And when necessary, we fight for them.

Already there are tons of people interacting with NCRA. Got to see a great article by Rich Germosen that talked all about how he had posted up the men of court reporting, and how others could see that, see that it was a wonderful profession for men and women, and jump into the field. There’s really something special about the staff of NCRA and the JCR, so if you’re outspoken or just need to be heard, make a submission today!

Alternatively, if you’re the quiet type, feel free to write in to Stenonymous. We’re not afraid of a little work, and we’ll compile your suggestions and send it to NCRA ourselves. You’re worth the effort, and your ideas just might confirm what the board’s already thinking and spur real action and progress on top of what we are already seeing.

We’re talking. They’re listening. And they’re more willing than ever to speak for us. So let this be a shout out to everybody who’s on the fence: We need you!

Shortage Solutions 3: Private Labeling

One shortage concern is a stenographic (stenographers’) aversion to the colloquial big-box companies. Some reporters have reported that even when the company acquiesces and pays proper rates, they don’t want to take it for whatever perceived reasons. The other day I was lucky enough to catch a profound and interesting idea put out there by MA Payonk on her current blog space, Steno Jewels.

To put it in simple terms it’s the age-old idea of private labeling. Example: Imagine all the resellers out there that take Coke, slap their label on it, and sell it away. Perfectly legal, functional, conceptual example of private labeling. You see this all day, every day in probably every store you walk into.

How would this work in steno? Well, if an agency is asking you to cover and they’ve agreed to pay what you want paid, but you have an aversion to building their brand for whatever reason, it’s perfectly sensible and allowable for you to make an agreement with them that you will cover production, and/or billing, and/or read & sign or services that are normally under their purview. Imagine a world where it’s your name, transcript cover, brand, on all the materials. That’s what we’re talking about here.

Succinctly whatever their cut is, it is for the marketing side of what they’ve done. In this private label example, the reporter is becoming more of a focal point, face, and name attached to the full service.

There is some merit to this idea. Many steno and reporting companies today follow a strict corporate brand strategy where their name is on every transcript, and this is something you see all over the country from McDonald’s to From You Flowers. That said, money is money, business is business, and if you can sell the idea of the private label strategy or an alternative branding strategy, you can take advantage of this novel shortage solution. As a matter of fact, we have seen this strategy before in reverse. For example, if ABC Company asks CBA Company to cover, CBA often goes “as” ABC. This idea would be the company “going as” Reporter Doe.

The only real question is: Would a company agree? And my money is on yes. I truly believe that companies would agree, especially if there was a dialogue or agreement. Maybe the answer would be middle of the road: We want to handle production but you can put all your contact information on the certification. In this country there is literally no limit to what can be in an agreement except that an agreement may not be illegal, so it is a sincere hope that every freelance reporter would read this and maybe come to their own conclusions or come up with their own ideas about being a self-employed person and the advertisement decisions that need to go along with that. It’s a hell of a lot more corporate friendly than my previous suggestion to poach clients, and you can bet that given the option, these companies will choose to work with us.