4 ms·

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

• 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.