Digital Court Reporting: Welcome it or fight it?

I take issue with the fact that it is even called court reporting at all, but that's besides the point.  For purposes of this post I will call it ER, because that's really what it is; recording and not reporting.  The point of this post is, should the voice and steno community support this "new" method of creating a transcript?  I have lots to say on the ER subject, but I will keep this issue narrow.  ER is here.  The business people who have sold this method to government and the private sector have succeeded in spreading it.  It is here.  On the other hand, ethical professionals who have been in this business long enough know that the pitfalls of ER go against everything the verbatim transcript stands for.  Without getting into each and every pitfall of ER and comparing it against the tried and true methods of voice, steno and even penned writing, should ER be accepted or should it continue to be fought?  Fighting ER (or anything for that matter) creates chaos, but accepting it places a seal of approval on ER from tried and true professionals that have proven steadfast for decades. Conundrum:  How does the verbatim court reporting community co-exist with this inferior method without accepting it and, in essence, placing a "seal of approval" on it?

Ethics or earnings?

Ethics, earnings.  Ethics, earnings.  Hmm.  Well, I want to do what's right, because I have a responsibility to guard the record.  I take that seriously.  I need to earn money to feed my family.  After all, money is the reason we choose a profession and go to work, right?  What is happening in the industry is multi-faceted.  From gift-giving to contracting and sprinkles of other things as well, makes this a sure rock and a hard place.  We are guardians of the record with a duty to remain impartial.  The competition in the private sector is wrought with behaviors that taint that duty.  Conundrum:  How do we uphold our responsibilties as guardians of the record while remaining competitive in the business world?

State associations: To join or not to join?

The purpose of joining a state association is to fund the association's missions regarding the protection of the integrity of the profession.  At least that's what the intention should be, but many people feel that this is not true.  There are beliefs that their association is run by people with their own agendas and not doing anything on the profession's behalf.  Associations complain that memberships are down and they do not have the funding needed to fight the necessary fights to do their job.  Conundrum:  How do we increase membership and income to associations when there is no faith in the association from reporters who have been disgruntled by the association's actions?