Like most of us I prowl the Internet for news and I'm finding more and more news stories presented as videos instead of an article, and this bothers me. In terms of time, this is the slowest and least efficient means of conveying information. A video will take me five minutes to get through (or more) whereas I can get the same or more information from an article in less than a minute. I will almost always skip looking at some interesting headline if its only availabe as a video (or if the headline is especially interesting I'll try to Google an article about it first before acceding to watching the video). Now the video does offer advertisers a captive audience not possible with an article (I can ignore pop-ups and all the ads in the screen margins but cannot fast-forward a video clip past its front-end ad), so I suspect this video trend may get worse and fewer news items will be available as articles. Anyone else disturbed by this sort of thing?
It bothers me as well, but it panders to the illiterate among us. Much easier to watch than to read. There are times a good video is in order. When trying to portray something graphic it is nice to have as a supplemental media.
As Toaster points out, the average internet surfer has a hard time reading. Where you might read a printed story in a small fraction of the time the video takes, the target audience needs more time for the printed story. Like you, I hardly ever click on the video. What really annoy me are sites where the video starts automatically. I might click on the links for several stories, opening each in a new tab, and then read them in turn. With the auto-start videos, I am suddenly assaulted by the audio of several ads from the various tabs.
I don't bother with articles that offer a video only story. If there is a video and a printed article then I'll read the printed one. Like you say, it takes much less time and there are no adverts.
this is weird, we all agree. i hate them and especially because there is an ad first. i never click them except by mistake and then i immediately backpage or close out if it sticks. i wonder how their feedback is on them?
This is a Prius community, and studies have shown it is usually those with better education that buy a Prius (at least in the US). A high school dropout in most of the commonwealth knows more than most high school graduates in the states so I dont know how well this translates to those outside the US. So we as a collective will probably outread most.
I particularly don't care for seeing videos because you can't help but receive the 'reporter's' voice inflection, which (intended or not) can sway the viewer's opinion. Also, frequently, there is a nod assent or dissent at the end by the co-anchor which also can 'lead' opinion.
My home internet is the slowest package they offered at the time I was in the market. I don't stream, I don't upload stuff, I rarely watch YouTube. So I don't need a super-fast connection that would sit idle 99.8% of the time. This is the primary reason I hate video-only stories; it takes too long for me to download them. Having said that, I like the mix of media for things like sports where there's an article discussing a controversial call or a hole in one and then a video that I can watch it myself. When video supplements the written story, I like it. I also think that you all are looking at this the wrong way. It's not about making it easier for the viewer, it's about making it easier for the publisher. It can take hours to write a good news article whereas the video might already be recorded and used for a television spot. Or perhaps is just raw footage they threw out on the net. In my opinion, there are so many unexplainable things in today's world that start making sense when viewed from a "easier for them not me" approach.
I have a very fast Internet connection, but still I don't often click on video links. It just takes too long. I only watch the ones where video really makes sense: action stories, naked women - that sort of thing. Tom
