Empires Built on Convenience – The Parallel Collapse of Big Pharma and Court Reporting

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inCourt ReportingTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A viral post has been circulating on social media, declaring that Big Pharma is on the verge of collapse. The post alleges that a “bombshell” report by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. links aluminum in childhood vaccines to skyrocketing autism rates, igniting a flood of lawsuits that could bankrupt pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer. Whether or not these claims stand up to scientific scrutiny, the story reveals a larger pattern—one that’s unfolding in a very different corner of public life: the world of court reporting.

At first glance, these two domains—healthcare and legal transcription—seem unrelated. But peel back the surface and you’ll find deep, structural similarities between Big Pharma’s alleged crisis and the systemic unraveling of the court reporting profession. Both involve industries built on credibility, public trust, and ethical responsibility—now threatened by profit-driven shortcuts, technocratic narratives, and a suppression of professional voices. Both are waking up to the consequences.

The Narrative Engine – Trust vs. Technology

In the pharmaceutical world, the trust equation is clear: Doctors prescribe, patients comply, and the public assumes that regulatory agencies are acting in our best interest. In court reporting, the equation is similar: Certified stenographers—trained, tested, and held to ethical standards—ensure an accurate legal record upon which justice depends.

But over time, both industries were infiltrated by a different narrative: that technology is superior, faster, cheaper, and good enough.

In medicine, this meant streamlining vaccine production and trusting adjuvants like aluminum to do the job of boosting immune response, with insufficient long-term study. In court reporting, it meant embracing digital audio recording and Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) as quick fixes to a “reporter shortage” without addressing the root causes or performance failures.

In both cases, the human element was cast aside, deemed inefficient, and replaced with systems that promised more, faster—with less accountability.

Whistleblowers, Professionals, and the Suppression of Truth

The viral Big Pharma story positions RFK Jr. as a crusader—someone who has long spoken out against what he believes to be corporate negligence and government complicity. Whether or not his conclusions are accurate, his role is emblematic: The professional who says, “Something isn’t right,” and is vilified for it.

Court reporters are in that same position now. Stenographers and voice writers have spent years raising red flags about the accuracy, reliability, and ethical dangers of handing over the legal record to machines. And like whistleblowers in other industries, they’ve been mocked, excluded, and silenced—branded as “anti-tech,” “resistant to change,” or worse.

But the truth always leaks out. Attorneys complain about transcripts riddled with errors. Judges notice digital recorders misfiring or failing to capture key exchanges. Litigants lose faith in a system that can’t ensure a verbatim record. These stories are growing louder—and they echo the public outcry in other sectors when convenience turns into crisis.

Regulatory Capture and Deregulation

Big Pharma’s critics often point to regulatory capture—when government agencies designed to protect the public instead protect the industries they oversee. Former FDA heads working for drug companies. Conflicts of interest in clinical trials. Decisions based on corporate lobbying, not science.

In court reporting, we’re seeing the same playbook. State after state has eliminated licensing requirements, leaving the door open for vendors and digital operators with no professional oversight. Court administrators, some with ties to transcription companies, have steered procurement away from certified professionals and toward bulk contracts with low-bid tech firms. This isn’t innovation—it’s deregulation dressed up as progress.

The result? A race to the bottom. Stenographers are leaving the field, not because they’re obsolete, but because the system no longer values the accuracy, ethics, and experience they bring. Just like doctors pushed aside by protocols and algorithms, court reporters are watching their profession be hollowed out from the inside.

Collapse as a Pattern, Not a Shock

The post about Big Pharma frames collapse as sudden—a breaking point after years of ignored evidence. But collapse rarely happens all at once. It starts as a pattern: corner-cutting, cover-ups, silent departures, systemic rot. Then one event—one scandal, one lawsuit, one viral moment—cracks the facade.

Court reporting is nearing that inflection point. The mistakes of ASR systems in legal proceedings are no longer hypothetical. There are court cases where recordings are inaudible. Where transcripts are rejected. Where vital testimony is lost forever. If the public fully understood what’s at stake—that the legal record of their life-changing moment might be assembled by a machine or an offshore typist—they would demand answers.

Just as the public is questioning the safety of the pharmaceutical machine, it’s time to question who is really keeping the record—and what happens when no one is.

A Legal Reckoning on the Horizon

In the viral pharma post, lawsuits are seen as the vehicle for accountability. And they may play the same role in court reporting.

What happens when a wrongful conviction is appealed, and the transcript fails to reflect what was actually said? What happens when a civil case is overturned because key objections are inaudible or missing? What happens when litigants sue over due process violations tied to faulty transcripts?

This legal reckoning is coming. Attorneys are already starting to push back. Some judges are now writing orders explicitly requiring certified reporters. As awareness grows, so will the pressure to correct course—or be held liable for the consequences.

The Path Forward – Reclaiming the Responsible Charge

There is a solution. And it comes from a concept borrowed from engineering: the Responsible Charge. In the 1980s, the Society of Professional Engineers pushed back against the idea that anyone could call themselves an “engineer.” They created clear definitions and secured legal recognition that only licensed professionals could be in responsible charge of engineering work.

Court reporters must do the same. We must assert that the official legal record requires the oversight of licensed, certified, and accountable professionals—stenographic or voice writing. The tools we use may evolve, but the responsibility must not be handed over to machines or subcontractors with no legal or ethical training.

We must demand legislation that protects our role, ensures quality control, and holds bad actors accountable. The National Court Reporters Association and state associations must lead this charge. Otherwise, we risk becoming the next cautionary tale—an empire that fell not because it couldn’t adapt, but because it forgot what mattered most.

Collapse Isn’t Inevitable—It’s a Choice

Big Pharma’s alleged collapse may or may not come to pass. But the court reporting profession is at a crossroads—and the signs are all around us. We can either follow the same path of deregulation, denial, and decay… or we can chart a different course.

The parallels are too close to ignore. We must learn from other industries’ mistakes and reclaim our profession before it’s too late. Collapse isn’t inevitable. It’s what happens when we stop listening to the people who saw it coming all along.

Now is the time to listen—and act.

Disclaimer

The content of this post is intended for informational and discussion purposes only. All opinions expressed herein are those of the author and are based on publicly available information, industry standards, and good-faith concerns about nonprofit governance and professional ethics. No part of this article is intended to defame, accuse, or misrepresent any individual or organization. Readers are encouraged to verify facts independently and to engage constructively in dialogue about leadership, transparency, and accountability in the court reporting profession.

  • The content on this blog represents the personal opinions, observations, and commentary of the author. It is intended for editorial and journalistic purposes and is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
  • Nothing here constitutes legal advice. Readers are encouraged to review the facts and form independent conclusions.

***To unsubscribe, just smash that UNSUBSCRIBE button below — yes, the one that’s universally glued to the bottom of every newsletter ever created. It’s basically the “Exit” sign of the email world. You can’t miss it. It looks like this (brace yourself for the excitement):

Published by stenoimperium

We exist to facilitate the fortifying of the Stenography profession and ensure its survival for the next hundred years! As court reporters, we've handed the relationship role with our customers, or attorneys, over to the agencies and their sales reps.  This has done a lot of damage to our industry.  It has taken away our ability to have those relationships, the ability to be humanized and valued.  We've become a replaceable commodity. Merely saying we are the “Gold Standard” tells them that we’re the best, but there are alternatives.  Who we are though, is much, much more powerful than that!  We are the Responsible Charge.  “Responsible Charge” means responsibility for the direction, control, supervision, and possession of stenographic & transcription work, as the case may be, to assure that the work product has been critically examined and evaluated for compliance with appropriate professional standards by a licensee in the profession, and by sealing and signing the documents, the professional stenographer accepts responsibility for the stenographic or transcription work, respectively, represented by the documents and that applicable stenographic and professional standards have been met.  This designation exists in other professions, such as engineering, land surveying, public water works, landscape architects, land surveyors, fire preventionists, geologists, architects, and more.  In the case of professional engineers, the engineering association adopted a Responsible Charge position statement that says, “A professional engineer is only considered to be in responsible charge of an engineering work if the professional engineer makes independent professional decisions regarding the engineering work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional engineer’s physical presence at the location where the engineering work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the engineering work.” If we were to adopt a Responsible Charge position statement for our industry, we could start with a draft that looks something like this: "A professional court reporter, or stenographer, is only considered to be in responsible charge of court reporting work if the professional court reporter makes independent professional decisions regarding the court reporting work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional court reporter’s physical presence at the location where the court reporting work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the court reporting work.” Shared purpose The cornerstone of a strategic narrative is a shared purpose. This shared purpose is the outcome that you and your customer are working toward together. It’s more than a value proposition of what you deliver to them. Or a mission of what you do for the world. It’s the journey that you are on with them. By having a shared purpose, the relationship shifts from consumer to co-creator. In court reporting, our mission is “to bring justice to every litigant in the U.S.”  That purpose is shared by all involved in the litigation process – judges, attorneys, everyone.  Who we are is the Responsible Charge.  How we do that is by Protecting the Record.

Leave a comment