Bear Bag Hanger: I hope he is wrong, as well as the people who pay for his services. It just takes too long, even under ideal conditions, to view multiple videos. If true, then the people loose a valuable source of information and will in the end know much less about the world.
Reading text while playing the related video in the background isn't exactly multitasking. it's just doing the same task, using 2 different senses. This is my biggest problem with video, not only do I have to look at the screen i have to listen to the video as well. not to mention wait for it to play out.
Whereas with text and pictures I can read the article browse through the gallery, all the while listening in the background something else, like music, news or podcasts. Same can be said with audio exclusive media, e.g: I can drive while listening to a audio book, but I can't watch a movie while driving.
As an additional bonus with text+pictures, I can quickly glance through it without having to watch the whole or at least 1/4 the video to get the gist of the idea.
Videos just takes too many sensory resources to enjoy.
Instead of providing more info with videos; videos are more likely used to simplify complex matters into a more palatable form. This is the strength of video
You know how they say a picture paints a thousand words? imo, stills are the best way to convey ideas in the shortest time, followed by text. It's sad to observe that more and more press is moving from the age old combo of text+pictures to text+videos.
Honestly I rather have text+pics. Simply because video is slow. Not only do I have to look at it (occupies my sight); I have to listen to it(occupies my hearing) and then I have to wait and follow the pace of the narration as dictated by the video without having the ability to fast forward or quickly glace through to get the gist of the idea.
In context of journalism, Give my text and pictures anytime.
ps: i'm not related in anyway to "spiderhunter"