What is a steno reporter's read back responsibility?

The name of this forum is enough to inspire this question, but I'm a scopist/scoping trainer with more than 20 years' experience in the field and am observing changes in the field that may not be in our collective best interest for the future.

The growing use of dependence on audio backup has led to situations where a reporter is unable to read back because they did not get the testimony down in steno.

I would like input from reporters about this issue.

Please understand that, years ago, I used to take sworn testimony for the Office of Naval Intelligence.  I know how hard it is to make the record at times.  My question now is not to put anyone on the spot, but to get a feel for trends that are having an impact (and not necessarily a good one) on our field.

Your comments will be appreciated.

The one time I was unable to read back was a situation in a courtroom where I had repeatedly asked an attorney to slow down and speak up.  She was unresponsive, and there were a few places where I did drop despite best efforts.  When the judge asked me to read back one of those places, I was not able to do so, and I was frank about the reason why.  I had tried to make the situation reportable, and I had my efforts there in the record.  Still, I was mortified even though the judge was gracious about it -- and said it happened frequently.

My understanding is that we are responsible for readback, period.  I have found that attorneys really appreciate a good readback, I think because it can eliminate a lot of bickering.  I believe that on at least two occasions, I was requested by attorneys for a deposition because of my readback.

It's important to remain as much in control of the proceedings as the situation permits.  I add that caveat because a few judges do not want any interruption at all from the reporter, preferring that you inform them of any difficulty taking the record.  And good luck catching their eye to do that during a heated discussion.   Sometimes it's asking too much to expect great readback from a reporter, however, and I think the reporter needs to respond honestly when asked to read back in these situations.

I can't imagine a reporter not being able to read back, although I never look at my paper notes (recently started going paperless) and with the computer setup, readback is so easy and flawless that you look brilliant!

Thank you, Judy, for highlighting this disturbing trend.  

A Facebook poster commented that some attorneys will not slow down or speak clearly no matter what. 

As a deposition reporter,  I encounter this problem with witnesses more than attorneys, for which I am grateful.   I do not hesitate to instruct a witness to speak up or repeat, but in a respectful and pleasant tone.   There are times, however, when I have to use my special tone of voice reserved for those "nightmare" depos where everyone is yelling, interrupting, slurring their words, you name it. 

I feel the audio option just promotes laziness.   The only time I use audio backup, by digital recorder, is when I report public hearings.   Interruptions by the Reporter are frowned upon.

It's true, now that we write realtime we do look fabulous when we are asked to read back.  For example, a request for a question and answer from two two hours earlier, and with a quick search by keyword I am reading back seamlessly.  I love that.

After reading the Facebook comments (I don't belong yet, silly me), the comment that attorneys won't slow down these days and just indicate that it's all on the videotape anyway shines a new light for me.  I can see how it would be hard to argue that, and it's not the time to enlighten the attorneys about what is and is not the legal record (the steno).

Sometimes, reporters get no respect.  I get that, from my many years of reading transcripts and wishing I could deck a few rude attorneys. 

Nevertheless, the consuming public has a right to an accurate and complete record, and court reporters are required to see that that happens, any which way they can.  Being shy and retiring is not the best qualification for being a prodicient reporter.

What think?

I've found the comments on Facebook interesting.  To this one ...

Tobi Minich
OMG - I bet the lady that started this feed is about ready to crawl in a hole about now. We ARE REPORTERS, charged with making the record, whatever that entails, and audio is a great BACK UP, that's it and that's all. If you can't read back, go work at McDonald's.

...  (as "the lady who started this thread") I must comment that I have been very gratified to see a lot of reporters "crawl" out of their "holes" and speak up for their profession.

As stated in one of my posts in this thread, I have always felt that reporters should take the burden off themselves by running backup recordings, for the purpose of their own use in producing a final transcript.

The reporter who spoke up to Gov. Schwartzenneger was spot on in pointing out the importance of the court reporter in the courtroom.  Unprofessional reporters who can't read back just give ammunition to him and his ilk in trying to replace red-blooded reporters with fallible machines. 

Audio most definitely has a place in today's court reporting settings.  It's whether it is allowed to replace steno reporters that is at issue in this thread. 

My references in messages I post online about the misuse of audio backup is based squarely on the administrative rules of the NCRA and at least the California Court Reporter Board -- as well as my own long experience in the field.  It actually isn't true that it's no one's business if a reporter chooses to rely heavily on audio.  Doing so *could* result in loss of licensure if a complaint is filed from a party in a lawsuit that the transcript filed with the court is not correct.  I am informed that in such an instance, only the final transcript and the steno record (not the audio file) would be looked at by a disciplinary board.

I have no wish to crawl in a hole.  I have a strong wish to see this profession of ours thrive.  And I greatly appreciate the opinions of the experienced court reporters who have bothered to participate in this discussion. 
 

Okay, okay, I'm not only a CMR but an CRR, and I hate not using my audio.  I also practice speed tapes nearly everyday.  In this day and age, people are talking faster, sloppier, using more idiom, using more creativity in speech than ever before, maybe especially in California since everyone in this state can be assumed to be an idiot in a hurry (hence the huge number of frivolous lawsuits).  But the number of times my audio has failed just keeps me honest.  I can only try to write down everything the folks say, which I firmly believe after 40 years of reporting is NOT possible, especially because of the way folks ask questions and don't listen to the answers, an event newly engendered by either talk-show radio or TV. (Ever listen to one of those shows?)  I recently was asked to read back a question so frigging unintellible with an answer given in the same way that my response was:  "Not a chance, try it again."  Everyone laughed but me.  I was angry and they knew it.  I knew an old-timer in Orange County Superior Court who told me when asked to read back and she didn't have it, "I just threw up in my paper tray."  Good solution in my opinion.  TOO LONG AN ANSWER.  Sorry.

30 years experience, CSR and RPR passed on first try, and 4 tries to pass the 3 legs of the Merit, (3 legs back then; no WKT that I think is now part of it), RDR passed on second try, master's degree in education (1st career was a HS teacher).  

Interrupting will only result in a call to the agency "DON'T EVER SEND HER BACK."  We need audio backup to protect us against the inconsiderate pigs out there who forget that there's a human being sitting there.   Part of my setup is minimic for audiosynch, 2 digital recorders, and earbuds.  When asked about it, I say, "It's my backup protection for when I ask you to slow down or speak clearer and you ignore me."

When asked for a readback, good or bad, I immediately put in earbuds which are plugged in as part of my setup, and do one of the following:

1.  When it's clean and beautiful, I read it back slowly and clearly.  Never fast because I don't want them getting used to fast in case. . .

2.  If it's so-so, I say, "One moment, please" and listen to audiosynch on the rough spot and then read it.

3.  If it's bad, I read and listen at the same time.  This is why it's important to not let them get used to hearing it fast.  I talk slowly and SOFTLY (so I can hear the audiosynch while I'm talking) and they get a great readback on my garbage.

4.  If it's really really bad, I say, "One moment, please," quickly edit it on the screen and then proceed as in step 3.

5.  If it's really really bad and it's a video, I do step 4 but don't edit it (no time!).  I might first take a quick listen of the garbage spot.

This needs to be done with poise, no self-consciousness, and with complete confidence.  

I second everything that Susan Capobianco said.

There is nothing better than a competent shorthand reporter with audio backup.  

It's an interesting question.  I started court reporting many, many years ago when the machines didn't even have a battery.  Tape recorders were simply not allowed.  One generally didn't put themselves in harm's way until they were competent, or didn't last long if they didn't follow that self-imposed rule.  I always thought it was the only profession I knew of where within ten to fifteen minutes you could pretty well determine the competence of the Reporter by asking for a readback.

In any event, one of my first jobs in a courtroom included the request for the readback by the jury of an entire witness's testimony, which had gone on for about one hour and thirty minutes.  There were three attorneys participating in some of the section to be read back, as there were two Defendants.  The Judge didn't even alert me to the fact that there was a readback pending, but called upon me immediately to read back to the jury in the open courtroom all of the testimony of that witness.  I did so.  And from what everyone could tell, it was all there.

I now think it's a double-edged sword utilizing tape back-up.  There's no doubt that we should utilize it, in my opinion, but one can become dependent upon the tape back-up, and it's a situation that one must always be reminding oneself of.  At least with an audio back-up it pretty much ends any discussion about the competence of the Court Reporter.  We either get it or we have a back-up to give it a second try when transcribing.  On the other hand, it was always easy to blame the Court Reporter if someone misspoke and didn't realize it until they saw the printed record. 

So I think the audio back-up is necessary in this day and age, when litigation is so expensive.  However, I'm convinced there are a lot of Reporters out there who don't belong there.  More than one attorney has said to me things like I've never heard anyone read back as fast as you just did.  (Of course for the first twenty-some years we used to read our notes while dictating, and that's a great way to learn to write clean notes.)  Now the computers translate our strokes into English.  I've also had an attorney say he asked for a readback and the Court Reporter said "I can't read that back.   It's on the audio."

That's not what a professional does on a continuing basis.

If I don't work for a few days I put on a speed tape before going out on another job for fifteen or twenty minutes before going on the job.  That's what professionalism is all about.  Once you start using the explanation that "it's on the audio," that's the beginning of the end of life Court Reporting.