No, it is not. You record court proceedings. I haven't designed a courtroom since 2005 (see what I did there) but in 2005, we were on third generation recording software. And, by the way, if you get a software hiccup in the recording it's a near-automatic mistrial so it's not like nobody acknowledges the importance of the recordings. Stenographers still do their job but it's primarily for instant playback and written documentation of the proceedings. "I need a lawyer, dog" is overt, punitive racism. Is a real problem. Should be shut down immediately and with prejudice. But is not a function of court reporters lacking cultural literacy.The solution here is not difficult.
Aren't there still courts out there who don't use AV equipment to record proceedings? Additionally, if a court does use audio recording but judges refer back to written transcripts, the problem is still there if the transcripts are flawed. It's safe to argue though that cultural literacy is needed throughout the entire system though, because without it even verbatim transcripts won't cut it. Not arguing. Just thinking out loud.No, it is not. You record court proceedings.
But is not a function of court reporters lacking cultural literacy.
I haven't installed every court in the United States. However, criminal proceedings generally go to a superior court. The software and equipment aren't expensive - about two months' salary for a stenographer (to put it in perspective). And we're talking about court reporting - not court interpreting. It's not at all safe to expect non-elected, trade-school trained technicians to interpret what they're hearing based on a specialized (rather than generalized) milieu. If a defendant is being misinterpreted, the onus is on their counsel to force a clarification, not on the court reporter to selectively parse nuances of register in order to render their best-fit response. This is how dog lawyers happen.