Why Does Stenonymous Repeat Itself?

Long-time readers will notice certain themes and topics get repeated. With over 700 posts over many years of publishing, it starts to feel like I’ve said it all at one time or another. Especially because this repetition isn’t limited to this blog. It also is performed across many social media posts and occasionally real-life conversations. It can be annoying, but it’s generally intentional.

The first part of it is simple. Messaging requires repetition. If you release a single message out into the world, that’s the life and death of the message, and whoever hasn’t heard it never will. This is incompatible with activist writing. When you need people to heed a call for funding, information, or shares, it needs to be repeated so that more people “hear” it. This can upset some people, who get tired of hearing it, but that’s a small price to pay if a message reaches a hundred more people, a thousand more people, or even just the right people.

The second part is still pretty simple. The illusory truth effect tells us that when we are given a message constantly, we will come to believe it, even if we know that information is wrong. I’ve said many times that I use propaganda techniques to tell the truth. That’s why I spent so much energy on repeating: “Veritext is committing a fraud. I can do something about it with enough funding. And it is possible to reach that level of funding with minimal participation from this field.” Eventually, it strikes a nerve with people that object to being defrauded, or object to students, jobseekers, small businesses, and consumers being defrauded. That’s where I suspect I make a great deal of my repeating donations. People that are fed up with what’s been done to the field they love so much. The truth becomes the information you believe. There’s no greater victory for me than that.

The third part of it all is the Pygmalion Effect. Our expectations impact our subconscious actions and therefore our reality. If you expect more from your leaders rather than letting them hide behind “I’m a volunteer,” you’ll take actions to hold them accountable. But more importantly, when I started down this road, I realized we collectively expected to lose. Lose to AI. Lose to digital. That was the entire point of the Speech-to-Text Institute’s propaganda campaign and media blitz. It set your expectations for the future of your field as low as possible. And so when I saw JC and by extension STTI had Society of Journalists connections and we just happened to get media parroting his talking points, I set to work raising expectations. “No, we can actually win this thing. We’re not losing, we’re being played to believe we’re losing. You’ve been lied to about the state of the field.” Expectations rose. Suddenly we were playing to win.

My only regret is that I can only reach so many people with our current level of funding. After my medical issues in 2021, funding fell off in a big way. Had it continued at the level it was at, Stenonymous would be a much larger fixture in the fight to warn consumers of our services about the fraud, and using science, it would dominate the liars and cheats. The legal liability issues I face are different from the ones the National Court Reporters Association faces, and therefore I can roll a lot harder than they ever will.

But I hold out hope that we’ll get to that place. Because the truth is I’ve seen how dedicated many of you are to the field. I know you care as much as I do. Maybe more. And even the ones that don’t give a damn are self-interested enough to chip in a few dollars. That means the day may come when we have a coalition large enough to topple the liars and cheats.

And ultimately, make our lives better, because we won’t be playing a game with liars and cheats.

The people that are good with numbers figured out that if they control the narrative they can deflate your rates and stick more money in their pocket. It’s that simple. That’s the long-term goal. All their little short-term bonuses are in furtherance of that goal.

I figured out that if you wage a war of words, you can delete the advantage they get from dishonesty.

So let me repeat something for the people good with numbers.

We will not be silenced.

First Draft: Stenonymous’s Proposal for Addressing the New York State Mental Health Crisis – March 2024

The mental health crisis in New York is a big topic of discussion online and off. I had an online interaction recently that sparked that more activist side of myself. So many of us are busy working people with not much time to protest or make our voices heard. Consequently, so many voices go unheard, and problems we experience go unsolved.

The core of my idea is creating a lawful process by which police are not just allowed, but required, to investigate problem incidents and people. As I’ve admitted in the past, I’ve seen the NYPD not show up when people call for help. I’ve read articles about how the NYPD ignores things it considers beneath it. A lot of cops, I’ve admitted in the past, I feel are heroes. But I’ll throw a bone to the ACAB crowd. Consequences are a universal human language. If there are no consequences, people will often opt to do the easiest thing. The easiest thing, by far, is to denigrate low-level complaints as “not worth the time,” or “a civil matter,” or whatever, and swear up and down that there are more important crimes to investigate, and then do nothing. Just how it is. I get it. This is a really nuanced issue, thinking of cops’ attitudes towards district attorneys declining to prosecute, and if I go into it any more this is going to be 9 years long. Let’s continue.

After you create a process by which the police MUST act on community complaints and create a process by which the police may detain or arrest for the purpose of assessment, amend the law to create consequences for people who stop treatment after having been assessed as requiring. Basically, if you don’t handle your problems, the consequences compound. And I don’t want to compound anyone’s problems, but this is just how it works. If you’re showing the system that you want to be a nuisance as opposed to just being someone in need of services or help, it ramps up consequences on you until you comply. Or you never comply, and eventually, bad things happen to you.

Now, there are definitely flaws in my idea. There may be case law that makes this difficult or requires this to be tweaked. On some level it might be redundant. We have initiatives for mental health. We’ve had initiatives like this challenged recently, though I don’t know the outcome as of writing. There are valid concerns about weaponizing mental health laws to allow police abuse versus “just” funding healthcare. But as I see it, this is silly binary thinking. We are human. We are imperfect. Our law is imperfect. You do the best you can to ascertain the impact of a law. If it seems good, you pass it. As the results come out, you tweak it to better suit the needs of the population.

Sometimes leadership is about making the best of a sea of bad decisions. Our leaders can’t say that because they like to be elected and the media likes to make them look ridiculous. The media’s terrified of me because I do not give a fuck if I look ridiculous. The more followers I get, the more I get to play leftist Elon Musk and use America’s obsession with the rich and powerful to fuck with the rich and powerful (in my case, the lawbreakers.) Today, I don’t have a lot of money. But I bet you there are millions of people who would throw down one or two bucks for the chance at creating a media personality that would make anti-retirement talking heads like Ben Shapiro beg for universal healthcare. Go ahead. Publish about me. Grow my follower count.

Maybe if we’re so concerned about the NYPD harassing people with mental health issues we should create a process by which those who feel they are experiencing harassment can bring it to the attention of a court, whether it’s an Article 78 proceeding or some other similar petition, and then maybe even get a court-issued order for the institutional harassment to stop, with penalties charged that go right to the aggrieved if they don’t stop. I’ll say in the NYPD’s defense that when I spoke to a sergeant recently about my 61 Broadway claims, he was professional, nice even, and as of yet, nobody’s harassed me. Again, nuanced, I have some benefits thanks to systemic issues in our society. There are arguments to be had a court process wouldn’t be accessible to the poor. I can go on for 9 years. I won’t.

Anyway, so what I’ll do now is share what I’m writing the public officials. Then I’ll put a download to the docx. If anyone wants to join me in trying to attract some attention, please do. I’ll be mailing these next week.

A download of what I’m sending the public offices is below.

New-York-State-Mental-Health-Crisis-Proposal Download

Addendum:

Just a note, I am reminded of something horrifying I saw today, which I believe is an old video out of New Mexico of a cop basically being butchered. It’s something I would think cop haters should see. Criticisms of police are valid enough, but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that these people are not putting their lives on the line for us.

EXTREMELY GRAPHIC, DO NOT WATCH if you cannot handle extremely graphic violence, including blood. Video.

If you would like a non-graphic video, check out these simulated shooter drills where they had a police critic try to determine when to shoot and when not to shoot. It really helped balance my perspective when a lot of the cop brutality stuff was coming out years ago.

…nine years of nuance.

3/19 update:

Christopher Day laments the state of law enforcement in the United States, where it is effectively legal for the nation of laws to harass working people with tolls, taxes, and everything else, while the degradation of our quality of life goes unabated and out in the open thanks to politicians afraid to admit difficult truths. Christopher Day has no opinion on any individual case because his duties demand he remain impartial, but feels this is a great example of the things New Yorkers are reading, discussing, and sharing. Just wait until you find out why this is in the third person.

Depp v Heard Steno Discussion

So the Depp v Heard trial has been dominating headlines for a while. It wasn’t good enough for stenography industry news until it started popping up on stenographer social media. Questions started to surface about a video that allegedly showed Judy Bellinger, a stenographer covering the trial, hugging Johnny Depp at an after party. There was skepticism on the part of many stenographers, and it was eventually revealed that the moment captured on camera actually occurred when Judy went to get her equipment.

An outrage story turned into a feel-good one, at least until Judy was quoted as saying some jurors were dozing off.

Image may be stolen from the Speak Up For The Record group.

Once again, stenographer social media was alight with a mix of support and outrage. For some of us, having somebody tell it like it is is cathartic. Many take issue with a court reporter commenting so publicly on specific identifiable proceedings she reported.

Now, I’m an advocate for the integrity of our profession. My personal stance is that I’ll agree with just about anyone that believes we shouldn’t be commenting much on our cases. But I have to give substantial credit, Bellinger’s managed to get more press coverage for the word stenographer than I have, and I’ve put considerable effort in.

One thing I spotted on social media? Stenographer stress. I’d like to offer some new perspectives to diminish that stress. This is a chance for all of us to go back to our mentees and professional circles and have a discussion about best practices. It’s ultimately about growth. I know many of us feel that one bad incident or “misspeaking” can reflect poorly on us all. But I’ve come to a realization that few professions have that sort of thinking, and the ones that do, such as law enforcement, have it thrust on them by media, they don’t agree and say “ah, yes, a cop did an arguably questionable thing, so we’re all questionable!” We need to let go of that mindset of absolutism for our own sanity and advancement.

As for advancement, I would propose steering the discussions toward what we tell our students. As of writing, I would propose the following:

On the initial video that showed the hug. Let our students know that there are cameras just about everywhere and that guarding against the appearance of impropriety is important. This is not to say that Judy Bellinger did anything wrong, but we still have a valid discussion in that it is a tricky thing to guard against the “appearance” of something because everyone has a slightly different bar for “appearance.” For example, my only training on guarding against the appearance of impropriety, which I had over half a decade ago, involved second guessing even shaking a party’s hand in court. There are also state and regional attitudes to consider.
On the quote about jurors dozing off, I have to say that my personal stance is to generally avoid commenting on matters I’ve taken, especially if they are identifiable. This is not to say I believe court reporters should never have or even express an opinion. Again, this is not to say Judy Bellinger did anything wrong. But there are ways to make comments about sleeping jurors without making comments about sleeping jurors. “You know, I’ve been doing this for X years, and I notice that sometimes jurors don’t appear to be paying full attention.” “What about in this case?” “I decline to comment on this case.” I’d propose going ahead and having a discussion with students about talking to the media.
On the right v wrong argument. No matter where you sit on the spectrum of any argument or debate, there’s a “reality wins” component. For an idea of how this works, we can examine my blogging. I’ve made the case many times that the pay in New York is atrocious to the point of being “wrong.” Some court reporting companies do not care and continue to pay stenographers less than $3.50 per page. The reality of the situation changes dependent upon how successful I am at applying social and/or economic pressure and not how “right” I am. Similarly, in an analysis of whether Judy Bellinger did anything wrong, being right means very little. The real challenge is in creating, communicating, and seeing through the adoption of better ways to handle similar situations. Training our students to be solution-oriented people and avoid the black-and-white, good-versus-evil thinking that grips many of us, including myself from time to time, will create better outcomes.

I have no idea what might arise as a result of the media coverage. Should new developments arise, I’ll post an addendum. Please feel free to comment below even if you disagree with my assessment! I’ve never censored a non-spam comment and don’t intend to start!

Want a Press Release? Write Me Today!

You can also email Chris@Stenonymous.com

Much to the chagrin of the fluff brigade in our industry, I identified that a lot of our problems stem from marketing and publishing. We are trained to be quiet observers. Unfortunately, as a profession, we got too quiet. Some people don’t even think stenographers exist.

But unlike some companies that insist on publishing press releases with little substance, I see great potential in our field. Imagine if every association ran one press release a quarter or if every stenographic business ran a press release once a year. Our internet presence would skyrocket. Just to give an idea of the kind of numbers involved, I could quit my job, become an advocate full time, and donate a significant percentage of profits to steno nonprofits and initiatives. We’d be running something like 12 press releases a day. Our field could be 1% of the newswire’s daily traffic. I don’t expect that kind of success, but I’m putting it all out there because I’ve run the numbers. We are powerful. Shortage wouldn’t last long.

Unlike others that use flowery words to obfuscate the service you’re purchasing, I’ll come right out and tell you that a press release in this modern world is a relatively simple affair. You hire a Presswire-type service and that service reprints your article to its affiliated sites and blasts it to journalists in its reach. The service I use costs about $100 a release. By buying in bulk. I can bring what I pay down to about $33. This does not guarantee that people or journalists will read your release, but it does increase your internet footprint substantially. If you hire me, we can add up to three pictures and one video to any press release, as well as embed your website into the release itself.

As for pricing, if you already have what you’d like to publish together, I’d be happy to offer input, do some light editing, and help publish it at the $100 price. On the higher end of the scale, if you want me to help produce media related to the release, such as a video, we would have to discuss expectations and fit the service to your budget.

Why me? I’ve got experience.

Even if you think my experience isn’t worth a dime, I’ve got honesty on my side. You know there will be zero nasty surprises. You will get a distribution report shortly after your press release showing you all the affiliate sites and channels targeted. You will get somebody who cares a whole lot about this field putting his all into the project. I cannot guarantee success, but I can guarantee that I will put all of the skills I have that have driven up the readership of this blog to work for you and our industry.

Addendum:

12/10/21. Future readers may be charged a higher price, especially for press releases with a video. After this post, I learned that these types of services can be more valuable.

Be Smart With Social Media

Social media is a powerful tool. Like any tool, it needs to be handled properly. We have had unions, associations, and individual reporters growing their online presence and using it to get details and ideas out to fellow stenographers. All that said, whether you’re posting a joke or creating a professional networking masterpiece, it’s time for some advice on social media.

First, realize that people will see what you post. You’ve got to be pretty comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing it, from your best friend to your worst enemy. What you do on social media is largely not private, no matter the group, setting, or structure. As a new person, this can be intimidating and dissuade you from participating in discussions. We’ll get into why that’s a bad idea, but first let’s run over some quick tips to make your use of social media enjoyable.

Parsons

If you are freelancing, posting about setting rates or conspiring to fix rates can get you in legal trouble. It’s called price fixing, and it’s a concern because we are not considered workers or employees, but independent contractors on the same level of business as agencies. We all know that the power and reach we have as individuals is different. That doesn’t change antitrust law.

If you’re working as an employee or even freelancing, posting about a job can hurt you badly. We are supposed to be neutral, and in some states there are ethical rules we can break if we are not careful. There is a line between talking about a political idea or law and talking about an actual case that you reported on. My advice? Don’t cross the line. Imagine screen shots of what you say being printed in news.

Be kind. The family members or friends of whoever you talk about may be watching. Easy example, I once posted about a stenographer losing their job. Someone who was close to that person reminded us then and there, we all struggle in life, don’t rush to judgment.

Test your own beliefs. You will see crazy claims out there on the Internet. Rarely should you dismiss what people say out of hand or make final conclusions. Perfect example, I saw a transcript I thought was page padding. I came to learn that that was that state’s mandated page layout. What you think is not always what is true.

Controls can help. Social media is a tool. Privacy settings can screen out some people from seeing stuff. You can choose who to follow, who to block, and all sorts of other content preferences. Spend just one afternoon reviewing your settings and make sure you’re getting the most relevant info in your feed.

So now we get to the logical end: This stuff is stressful. Why don’t I just delete my social media? You can. There is no law against that. But social media is this amazing tool for staying current and tuned into what the field is doing. We get the great marketplace of ideas, dispatches from agencies, and food for our own thoughts. Life is stressful, but very few of us run off into the wild to live off the grid. Why? Because the benefits of society are greater than the simplicity we’d otherwise have. Similarly, the benefits of social media are greater than the peace gained by never engaging. That said, engage smartly so that your tool never gets used as a weapon against you.

Getting Involved: As Simple As A Like

Got an anonymous e-mail February 16. As best I can interpret it, it’s a little poke to introduce NCRA’s wide range of social media options. If there was supposed to be an attachment, it didn’t send, and I’m sorry. So, I’ll link it all and then we’ll talk about it a little more. NCRA keeps a page about its social media outreach here. They have a page for captioners. They have a page for CART providers. They’ve got a spot for freelance reporters. Legal videographers have a group. Official reporters get a warm welcome too. There’s a scopist and proofreader group. There’s a place devoted to reporting technology, AKA “the technology share.” Finally, there’s a Realtime TRAIN page. States it’s for nonmember and realtime users. Seems related to the TRAIN initiative to get people realtime and marketable.

Now I’ll come to a point about why all this matters. Support comes in different shapes and sizes. Ideas evolve in different ways. When we are all connected, sharing, and spreading information, it becomes easier to organize, learn, and engage in our respective markets. California reporters, as an example, are going to have a somewhat different experience and insight than New York reporters because we are on opposite ends of the country with different laws, licensing requirements, and professional organizations. That said, the NCRA can be a bonding place for all of us in the different areas of the field, and a way for us to get information out faster and with a lot more fanfare. While it is important for people to get involved in whatever way they can, whether that be volunteering, brainstorming, compiling information, or developing free resources for people to learn about steno, there’s a lot to be said about simply tuning in and staying a part of the network.

For example, imagine Reporter A and Reporter B. Reporter A is busy and has a hectic job, but liked NCRA’s facebook page, so NCRA’s stuff pops up in A’s feed. A sees they could use someone to write a JCR article about A’s busy and hectic job, and now A has the power to fill in that need. Reporter B has the same busy and hectic job, but B isn’t connected, never sees it, never hears about it, and never shares the tips and tricks to being good at B’s busy and hectic job.

If we’re linked in, we all have the ability to contribute. Whether or not we choose to contribute is our own business. Simply having the capability to join in a moment or movement is worthwhile and empowering. Tell everyone you know, getting involved can be as simple as a like.