There’s an old saying: “History is written by the victors.” But in courtrooms, history is written by those who control the record — and that power has never been more contested. Across centuries and civilizations, those in power have understood that if you can erase, rewrite, or control the narrative, you can shape the future. Today, in the American legal system, that power often rests in the hands — and the fingers — of stenographic court reporters.
But what happens when that record is outsourced, digitized, or corrupted by those with political, financial, or technological power? What happens when the guardians of the verbatim record are pushed aside for expedience, profit, or manipulation?
The answer isn’t hypothetical. History gives us the blueprint.
1. “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” — George Orwell, 1984
In Orwell’s dystopia, the Party maintained power not only through surveillance and fear, but by continuously rewriting history. Archives were edited, photographs altered, newspapers rewritten. The past was whatever those in power said it was.
Sound far-fetched? Consider this: In a courtroom, the transcript is the past. It is the factual backbone upon which appeals are argued, verdicts reviewed, and legal precedents established. If the accuracy, authenticity, or integrity of that record is compromised, the entire system of justice begins to warp.
When transcripts are created by unlicensed contractors, AI systems, or digital recordings later “edited” by interested parties, the ability to rewrite history becomes disturbingly easy — and almost impossible to detect.
2. “History is written by the victors.” — (Attributed to Winston Churchill)
Those who win political, legal, or economic battles often get to shape the narrative. In modern courts, “victors” aren’t always the litigants. Sometimes they are:
- Judges who refuse to allow a stenographic reporter, even when one is available.
- Attorneys who intimidate or retaliate against reporters for doing their jobs.
- Judicial councils that quietly shift policy to favor “cost-saving” measures like digital audio, even if it undermines transcript reliability.
- Private equity firms that acquire reporting agencies, strip out licensed reporters, and replace them with cheaper recording methods to maximize profit margins.
- Large national agencies that manipulate scheduling, undercut rates, and hide the true nature of their “reporting” practices.
- Software companies that claim “AI transcripts” are just as good, while disclaiming all legal responsibility for their errors.
- Governors or presidents who appoint regulators hostile to the profession.
- State boards captured by lobbyists, stacked with appointees tied to tech companies or politicians advancing ASR (automatic speech recognition) solutions.
- Court administrators whose priority is budget compliance, not constitutional accuracy.
- Influencers and advocacy groups who confuse the public with flashy events while quietly reshaping policy behind the scenes.
- Court reporters themselves, when some agree to act as “reporters in charge” for unlicensed, unscrupulous entities that undermine the profession, or when licensed reporters choose silence and inaction, rather than confronting systemic erosion.
While many reporters are fighting to uphold standards and protect the integrity of the record, others inadvertently or deliberately enable the very forces seeking to dismantle their role. By lending their credentials to entities that bypass ethical and regulatory safeguards—or by refusing to push back against these shifts—they become instruments of the narrative-controllers, rather than guardians of the record.
In every one of these cases, the party that controls the record controls the outcome.
3. “Who controls the narrative, wins.” — Strategic Communications Maxim
Modern power is often exercised through narrative control, not overt censorship. We see this in media, politics, and law. If a record is “close enough,” the controlling party gets to define its meaning.
- A garbled AI transcript that almost gets the words right can still shift legal outcomes, if no human stenographer is there to certify, correct, or stand behind the record.
- A judge’s bench notes can override a poor recording.
- A private company can control access to the audio, “clean” it, or delay delivery of transcripts that don’t fit their preferred timeline.
- Agencies can “reinterpret” testimony after the fact when no neutral guardian is present.
Stenographic court reporters are uniquely positioned to neutralize this power. Their sworn duty is not to any party, company, or politician — it is to the record itself. That is why undermining their role is not just a labor issue; it’s a constitutional and historical one.
4. “Memory is the battlefield of power.” — Modern Political Theorists
Throughout history, rulers have understood that collective memory is where power is consolidated. Examples abound:
- Ancient Egypt: Pharaohs chiseling out the names of predecessors (e.g., Hatshepsut) to erase their existence.
- Rome: Damnatio memoriae, where disgraced figures were erased from monuments and official inscriptions.
- Stalin’s USSR: Political rivals airbrushed from photographs and encyclopedias.
- Modern authoritarian regimes: Rewriting textbooks, censoring archives, or algorithmically burying inconvenient facts.
- American courts: In the Waukesha “Christmas Massacre” case, reliance on electronic recording systems without certified court reporters underscored how fragile and manipulable legal records become when no neutral human guardian is present. Missing audio segments, technical failures, or selective editing can distort the judicial record — especially in high-stakes, politically sensitive trials.
Court reporters are, in essence, modern scribes. They ensure that today’s events are faithfully recorded for tomorrow’s memory. When their role is bypassed, society returns to an era where those in power decide what “really” happened.
In the U.S. judicial context, we see a contemporary echo in the Waukesha, Wisconsin “Christmas Massacre” case of November 2021. When courts rely solely on electronic recording systems without certified court reporters, critical pieces of the record can be lost, manipulated, or degraded—especially when the court itself is implicated in misconduct.
In that case, while the incident itself involved a vehicular attack during a holiday parade, the broader concern for court reporting professionals lies in how transcripts, recordings, and evidentiary records can be vulnerable when human oversight is removed. The site I read describes how reliance on purely electronic systems introduces a heightened risk that “essential records may be lost, manipulated, … deleted — especially when a court itself is implicated in misconduct.”
Court reporters are the bulwark against such erasure. Their presence ensures that the record is not a fragile digital artifact governed by whoever controls the files, but a human-verified, independently maintained transcript that resists undue alteration. In the absence of that, the powerful can twist the memory of what was said, when, and how — influencing appeals, public perception, and the very future of justice.
5. Digital Erasure & Algorithmic Memory
In the 21st century, the battlefield has shifted from chisels and newspapers to servers, algorithms, and proprietary software:
- Digital audio can be quietly altered, unlike a certified transcript sealed by a reporter.
- AI-generated “transcripts” can be retroactively edited without leaving an audit trail.
- Search engines and corporate databases determine visibility, deciding which records surface and which vanish into obscurity.
- Private platforms, not courts, are becoming de facto archivists of legal testimony.
When the record is reduced to a manipulable audio file owned by a private company, public trust is displaced by private control. It’s not just about typos; it’s about who holds the pen of history.
6. The Court Reporter’s Role: Neutral Guardian of Truth
Unlike software, stenographic court reporters are:
- Licensed officers of the court (in many states).
- Bound by ethics and law to create a verbatim, neutral record.
- Subject to discipline and accountability if they falsify or alter testimony.
- Human witnesses to the proceeding, capable of clarifying, verifying, and defending the record under oath.
- Sworn custodians, not contractors paid to deliver whatever narrative the highest bidder prefers.
Their presence is not a luxury. It is a constitutional safeguard — the invisible backbone of appeals, accountability, and historical truth.
7. A Better Model: Decentralized Record Keeping
A superior alternative to centralized digital repositories is a decentralized model in which individual court reporters themselves are entrusted with maintaining and securing the legal record. According to the StenoImperium framework, this approach distributes responsibility across multiple actors, greatly reducing the risk of a single point of failure.
Each reporter maintains redundant backups — on local hardware, cloud systems, external drives, and encrypted audio copies — resulting in multiple copies of the record. Unlike a centralized system vulnerable to floods, fires, cyberattacks, or internal sabotage, the decentralized approach ensures that if one copy is compromised, many others remain intact.
Moreover, decentralization prevents any single entity — government, tech firm, or court administrator — from monopolizing control over access, editing rights, or data governance. By entrusting the record to independent, licensed stenographic professionals, the system preserves the verifier’s integrity, transparency, and accountability.
8. Control of the Record = Control of Power
The erosion of stenographic reporting isn’t just about replacing one technology with another. It is a transfer of narrative power:
- From neutral guardians to interested parties.
- From public officers to private corporations.
- From transparent records to editable data.
- From human accountability to algorithmic opacity.
In a world where narratives can be weaponized, stenographic reporters are the firewall between justice and revisionism.
StenoImperium
Court Reporting. Unfiltered. Unafraid.
Disclaimer
This article reflects my perspective and analysis as a court reporter and eyewitness. It is not legal advice, nor is it intended to substitute for the advice of an attorney.
This article includes analysis and commentary based on observed events, public records, and legal statutes.
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):
STENOIMPERIUM 