4 ms·

> who really wants to read an interview - I want to watch an interview. Give me information that can't be expressed in video and that isn't 2000 words long with

> who really wants to read an interview - I want to watch an interview. Give me information that can't be expressed in video and that isn't 2000 words long with long, drawn out flowery language. Me. I am exactly opposite on this. I don't want to watch a video if it could have been an article. I don't think this is uncommon, either.

bell-cot 2y ago
Sometimes me. But 99% of the time, my preference is for a competent journalist distilling the interview into an article. Thus sparing me all the ways that politeness, chit-chat, and long-winded stuff can turn a 1,000-word article into a 4,000-word interview.
- 101008 2y ago
  I'd prefer the other way around. Reading the raw interview instead of the biased report of a journalist. I want to see all the quotes, not quotes out of context, summaries of answers or stuff like that.
  - enobrev 2y ago
    To follow the gist of the leading post on this thread, we should easily have access to both. I'm perfectly happy to read a summary; Then then journalist's take; And ideally the quotes would link to the transcript of the full interview, and ideally those would timecode to the audio / video of the full interview. In modern times there's no reason we can't have all of these things for all our news.
  - jzb 2y ago
    Ideally, you'd have both. Gimme a transcript of an interview but a well-written article in front of it with additional context and a better narrative. A lot of detail readers might want makes for shitty interview questions and/or the interviewee(s) may not be the best source(s) for that.
  - rchaud 2y ago
    There is no such thing as a 'raw interview' unless you're sitting right there with them. Every printed interview is edited for 'concision and clarity', and the interviewee for the most part knows what questions are coming. Journalists also quote interview responses verbatim, so where is the bias if they're printing what was said?
    - troyvit 2y ago
      Radio and podcasts actually. Politico does this, and cpr.org (my employer) does it too. They'll have a blurb about the topic, a link to the podcast, and then a printed, edited version of the interview. I love it.
WalterBright 2y ago
> I don't want to watch a video if it could have been an article. Same for me. I can read a transcript of a talk in 5 minutes, while it would take an hour to listen to the video.
- Arrath 2y ago
  Not to mention that I often find myself in places where a video might get 5 seconds in and sit buffering forever, but a blob of text would load fine.
cryptonector 2y ago
If I can watch/listen at 2.5x speed, I might prefer that over reading. It's a question of bandwidth and comfort.
trilobyte 2y ago
I used to be this way, but I've started to err on the side of video because there's a lot that's unspoken/unfiltered through the journalists biases if you watch someone in an interview. Body language, what they leave unspoken, answers to questions that seem conflicting or irreconcilable with previous answers.
randomdata 2y ago
If it is important, I want to read it. If it is merely a curiosity, I want to listen to it while doing something else. The newspapers deliver mostly curiosities.
driscoll42 2y ago
100% I hate the videofication of the internet. So much content is locked behind a video that is vastly more difficult to pull detail out of and search and just text. Videos are a great supplement to most text, but rarely do they make a good primary source of information.

bell-cot 2y ago

Sometimes me. But 99% of the time, my preference is for a competent journalist distilling the interview into an article. Thus sparing me all the ways that politeness, chit-chat, and long-winded stuff can turn a 1,000-word article into a 4,000-word interview.

101008 2y ago
I'd prefer the other way around. Reading the raw interview instead of the biased report of a journalist. I want to see all the quotes, not quotes out of context, summaries of answers or stuff like that.
- enobrev 2y ago
  To follow the gist of the leading post on this thread, we should easily have access to both. I'm perfectly happy to read a summary; Then then journalist's take; And ideally the quotes would link to the transcript of the full interview, and ideally those would timecode to the audio / video of the full interview. In modern times there's no reason we can't have all of these things for all our news.
- jzb 2y ago
  Ideally, you'd have both. Gimme a transcript of an interview but a well-written article in front of it with additional context and a better narrative. A lot of detail readers might want makes for shitty interview questions and/or the interviewee(s) may not be the best source(s) for that.
- rchaud 2y ago
  There is no such thing as a 'raw interview' unless you're sitting right there with them. Every printed interview is edited for 'concision and clarity', and the interviewee for the most part knows what questions are coming. Journalists also quote interview responses verbatim, so where is the bias if they're printing what was said?
  - troyvit 2y ago
    Radio and podcasts actually. Politico does this, and cpr.org (my employer) does it too. They'll have a blurb about the topic, a link to the podcast, and then a printed, edited version of the interview. I love it.

WalterBright 2y ago

> I don't want to watch a video if it could have been an article. Same for me. I can read a transcript of a talk in 5 minutes, while it would take an hour to listen to the video.

Arrath 2y ago
Not to mention that I often find myself in places where a video might get 5 seconds in and sit buffering forever, but a blob of text would load fine.

cryptonector 2y ago

If I can watch/listen at 2.5x speed, I might prefer that over reading. It's a question of bandwidth and comfort.

trilobyte 2y ago

I used to be this way, but I've started to err on the side of video because there's a lot that's unspoken/unfiltered through the journalists biases if you watch someone in an interview. Body language, what they leave unspoken, answers to questions that seem conflicting or irreconcilable with previous answers.

randomdata 2y ago

If it is important, I want to read it. If it is merely a curiosity, I want to listen to it while doing something else. The newspapers deliver mostly curiosities.

driscoll42 2y ago

100% I hate the videofication of the internet. So much content is locked behind a video that is vastly more difficult to pull detail out of and search and just text. Videos are a great supplement to most text, but rarely do they make a good primary source of information.