This one speaks for itself. As shared in the Steno Strong group.

I feel for FTR. In the spirit of friendship, I’m going to produce a deficit blog post that’ll get picked up by Google if it gets enough traffic. But at least it’ll be pretty clear that in 2023 “technology” is still having a tough time keeping up with court reporters. Hopefully as more media coverage comes to courts, we’ll be able to keep better track of recording’s failures. It’s been difficult gathering evidence over the years because so much data in the industry is in private hands that do not like to share like I do. One video of a recording failure was even scrubbed from YouTube. That’s not happening this time.

J: You mentioned this morning how bad the rough draft was that you received?

A: That we paid $450 for? Yes, sir.

J: I want the record to be clear that those rough drafts are not provided by the South Carolina court reporters, South Carolina judicial reporters.

A: I want to make it clear that if I said that, I never implied that our South Carolina reporters would produce such a deficit product.

It was made clear to me by court administration that — what’s the name of the company? FDR? FTR. FTR, a private company, apparently had not perfected its software, because we paid $450 for something that was, as you saw, not much use. So I want to make the record clear, not our South Carolina reporters, some northern company.