That community is on my block list for years so take this with a grain of salt since I know nothing about its current state, but video is a horrible format for news. It takes longer to skim, you can’t copy paste quotes or quickly confirm that something someone quotes or mentions is actually an accurate reflection of the video, there is less substance and what is there is likely to be more about evoking emotion than presenting information and ideas. Sometimes footage of an event is relevant, but usually that works way better embedded in the context of a text article. For a speech or interview, a transcript is more useful.
Video as format has been a standard since the 1950s. You might not prefer it, but as cameras became so cheap, it became ubiquitous. Whether we like it or not is secondary to whether or not it’s actually journalistic.
Now that can spiral a bit out of control in the modern media landscape where so much of media is derivative, and even more increasingly, derivative of derivative. For example, Hasans content falls into this bucket, where they are doing news and media analysis. They’re commenting on and criticism other forms of media which themselves are already secondary sources. Or even further they’re critiquing a critique of a critique and on and on. So as hollow as that might seem, it’s actually how discourse has always occured. Its a back and forth volley of critiques and points.
That’s fair, but imo the point of content being posted on a site like Lemmy is so it can be meaningfully discussed and reacted to using text, and a video, especially a longer video, makes that harder in various ways than something which is itself text, so regardless of the journalistic legitimacy of video it doesn’t seem like a bad requirement that news be presented as text.
That community is on my block list for years so take this with a grain of salt since I know nothing about its current state, but video is a horrible format for news. It takes longer to skim, you can’t copy paste quotes or quickly confirm that something someone quotes or mentions is actually an accurate reflection of the video, there is less substance and what is there is likely to be more about evoking emotion than presenting information and ideas. Sometimes footage of an event is relevant, but usually that works way better embedded in the context of a text article. For a speech or interview, a transcript is more useful.
Well a few thoughts…
Video as format has been a standard since the 1950s. You might not prefer it, but as cameras became so cheap, it became ubiquitous. Whether we like it or not is secondary to whether or not it’s actually journalistic.
Now that can spiral a bit out of control in the modern media landscape where so much of media is derivative, and even more increasingly, derivative of derivative. For example, Hasans content falls into this bucket, where they are doing news and media analysis. They’re commenting on and criticism other forms of media which themselves are already secondary sources. Or even further they’re critiquing a critique of a critique and on and on. So as hollow as that might seem, it’s actually how discourse has always occured. Its a back and forth volley of critiques and points.
That’s fair, but imo the point of content being posted on a site like Lemmy is so it can be meaningfully discussed and reacted to using text, and a video, especially a longer video, makes that harder in various ways than something which is itself text, so regardless of the journalistic legitimacy of video it doesn’t seem like a bad requirement that news be presented as text.