I agree with a lot of the sentiment around what you're saying, that new forms shouldn't be dismissed as inferior to old forms. What I would say, is that we tend

I agree with a lot of the sentiment around what you're saying, that new forms shouldn't be dismissed as inferior to old forms. What I would say, is that we tend to value the structure and organisation of ideas and information into systems and larger works tend to be more impressive and valuable than shorter form works. For example, in the architectural space, large cathedrals tend to be more impressive than small chapels (unless there is something particularly intriguing about the small chapel). Similarly, movies tend to be more impressive than YouTube videos and books tend to give a more detailed and better structured condensation of a topic than a podcast. I'm not saying that the shorter form doesn't have value, it absolutely does, and you could argue that long form is just an amalgamation of short form. Both have their time and place. But the long form versions are more complex and therefore tend to take more time, effort and skill to assemble and that's why we generally value them higher than the short form counterparts.