4 Reasons Court Stenographers Are Better Than Digital Recorders
Digital recorders have gotten a lot of positive publicity lately, but nothing is more accurate or reliable than a court stenographer—here’s why
Although there has been a lot of positive publicity surrounding the benefits of digital recording, there are some major concerns that should be considered by anyone before committing to using digital recording. There are many different reasons why it makes more sense to use a stenographer in your proceedings as opposed to a recording, and four of these are outlined below.
Reason #1: In-person stenographers are more accurate
Sure, there’s been a lot of marketing around digital recording’s “new” technologies, but there’s a lot to be said for having someone present in the room. Small details could easily be missed in a digital recording, and having the stenographer present in the room significantly decreases the chances of this happening.
The clarity and accuracy of a courtroom event are important, and a digital recording captures noise and not just words, whereas a court stenographer captures only the words that are spoken and relevant to the specific proceedings.
It can be a bad and costly decision to assume that a digital recording will accurately capture what’s being said, as noises in the room or surrounding area can muffle what’s happening. When accuracy is of the essence, as it frequently is during any scenario where you need a legal transcript, a real-time court reporter should be the clear and obvious choice.
Reason #2: Court reporters can testify to the integrity of the record
As stated above, there is no guarantee that a digital recording will appropriately capture what is actually being said. Stenographic reporters are able to sort and discriminate between background noise and testimony. A court reporter can also be brought in to testify about the integrity and accuracy of the record, if necessary. This is not an option with a digital recording, as too much is left up to chance.
Reason #3: Confidentiality has a margin of error with digital reporting
Digital audio will record confidential discussions through operator or mechanical error and the third party creating transcript will not realize this while creating the record. This can prove problematic for all parties. In addition, multiple conversations happening at once are confusing as well when someone is analyzing a digital recording. An in-room stenographer, however, is trained and educated not to add exchanges or miscellaneous conversations between clients and their attorneys.
Reason #4: Research is easier with a court stenographer
Audio research does not give attorneys or judges the opportunity to conduct research during a proceeding. Using software based on what’s been captured by the stenographic reporter, however, allows judges and attorneys to pull up prior depositions, hearings or other related instances in order to compare with testimony being given at the time. The ability to do this quickly and accurately is essential.
Eliminate ambiguity, choose realtime court reporting
These are just four of the reasons that a present stenographer is a better choice for capturing the record promptly and accurately. Although digital recording on its face may appear to offer some benefits, frequently the challenges associated with a digital recording are not known until after the event in question has already transpired, generating problems regarding accuracy as well as integrity. Opting to use a court stenographer, however, eliminates many of these challenges. Stenographers are experts in capturing the spoken word.
To learn more about how realtime reporting can benefit you, call Boss Reporting at 954-467-6867 or simply request a quote.