And not enough words. Virginia makes a point that I was vaguely feeling on election day about PJM coverage:

Personally, I hated the PJM election coverage, because I don't want to have to watch video online. I want to read, and PJM offered way too little written material. But with the right technology, video is much easier to provide--especially if you don't care about shaky-cam production.

I want to read, too. Given a choice between watching a video (or even listening to audio) of people saying stuff, and reading a transcript, give me the transcript every time, unless there's some particular reason to want to parse tone/expression, etc.

Save the video for things that need video (rocket launches, explosions, bikini contests, etc.) and give me text for more straightforward information.

I don't take in and retain information that well through my ears. I always preferred to read the textbook to listening to a professor lecture. The baud rate is just too low. Similarly, whenever (say) Glenn links to something that looks (sounds?) interesting, and it turns out to be a podcast or video, there's always this resistance to click, or wait for the words to dribble out, whereas if it's to text, I eagerly read it. I don't have time to listen to someone tell me something when I can read it much faster.

I hope that as voice recognition gets better, we'll get more and better instant transcripts of talking-head stuff.

I sent an email to Professor Reynolds some time back on this very subject. I don't like video/audio talking head stuff on the web for two reasons:

1) As you say I can read a transcript much faster than I can listen to the audio.

2) I can skim text to see if I'm really interested in actually reading it. It's hard to skim a recording.

I've found some of the bloggingheads' topics interesting, but I visit there less than once a month, because I don't want to sit through the video.

More bikini contests on PJM!

I'll watch any amount of Malkin, Ham and the other 'Vent' babes they care to dish up, thank you very much.

As for most of the rest of the available public affairs video on the Web, the expression "a face made for radio" comes far too often to mind.

Agree 100%. Much prefer the written word. At least you can skim to interesting bits.

Mike

It's easy to understand why so many videos are being produced - it's easier than having to transcribe an interview. All you have to do is shoot the video, throw in a little editing, and post it. Providing a transcript is a lot of work.

Another point: there are still those of us so deprived as to still be on dialup. I simply do not watch videos, because waiting for ten or fifty megs to download at 4 kB/s just ain't worth it, and I rarely listen to podcasts or radio, which are a bit faster but still agonizingly slow.

Give me the damn text. Audio is laziness, and video is abandoning responsibility.

Regards,
Ric

Another agreement here! I prefer text to videos except on very rare occasions. There is much more information packed in text worth reading; and it's easy to discern if the text is worth reading. Video, there's no way to tell if it is worth the time, and in my experience, it usually isn't. Text also forces coherence of thought in a way video does not. Almost a reason vs. emotion thing. Bandwidth and time are too precious to waste.

Can anybody suggest the best looking blogging babes? Links, please?

Well, I finally found some folks who also don't care for these video "blogs," or whatever else they're calling them these days.

It's true that it's easier for the author to do video than create written text. In addition to everything else mentioned above, we also lose links, that all-important feature that only the web can provide.

I wish they'd stop with all this video stuff. Even Michelle Malkin has started it. I agree with every point given above.

Thanks.