This recent news story says that Rupert Murdoch is investing millions in video for news websites.
This seems to be a growing trend. Look at a news website and half the stories (or more) seem to be in video form, with either no text other than the headline or just the briefest summary.
Am I alone in finding this a huge step backwards? Most of the time I am checking news sites on my phone. I don’t want to have to play a video, which will probably be no use without sound. I want to be able to read the story, either skimming it or studying it in full, depending on interest level. I certainly don’t want to watch a talking head reading text at slow speed. It’s like being stuck sharing a book with the slowest reader at school.
Yes, there are some stories where video is helpful, but it should be an adjunct to a properly written story, not the whole story. How can anyone think that watching a long and tedious video, probably preceded by an advert, is preferable to being able to actually read the news at their own place?
Am I really in the minority in feeling this way? The path that online media seems to be taking suggests that I am.
It does appear that you and I are in the minority, but I agree with you. I don’t watch television or video news at all, except very rarely in the case of a live developing event. I prefer to get my news from reading a complete, thoughtful analysis after the event is over and all of the facts are in. Unfortunately, that type of news reporting is becoming increasingly rare, and it looks like the immediate videos are what most people prefer.
I also can’t listen to an audiobook. I need to be able to absorb information at my own pace.
I agree completely, I can’t stand video news stories, excepting the relatively rare one that is enhanced by important video footage. Like you, I want the page to quickly load and I want to read the story at my own pace, including skimming past stuff. But I’m guessing this has little to do with what users want, but more with being able to insert a commercial before the video starts.
On a related note, I can’t stand the slideshow news stories that make you click a dozen times to read the story or see the photos. Just put it all on one page!
Totally agree. If all there is is a video (without an accompanying article I can read) I look for the same news somewhere else. And those autoplay videos can eat a bag of…um…donuts.
Oh Og yes. At least if I know a link goes to a video, I can avoid it. Clicking a link to what I think is going to be a text-only page and then having videos just start playing makes me never want to visit that site again.
Agreed. I don’t usually use my phone for news (pc, instead), but I do not like video. I have never watched the nightly news, and haven’t watched any 24-hour news station by choice (not in dentist office, etc.) since 2002 or so, as far I recall. I much prefer reading news.
Agreed. I want to read the story, and if there is a video, have an option to look at it. Not to mention that I’m often in a public place on my PC and don’t want random audio clips going off.
I much prefer to read news stories when on the web. Usually because I’m doing something else at the same time. On hold with a vendor while at work, watching TV at home, sitting in a waiting room, etc. I need to be able to look away from the article at a moments notice then resume from the same spot at a moments notice and also not disturb others around me.
so, either the SDMB is not a representative sample of the world at large, or these news sites haven’t done much market research. I suppose it could be as simple as they can force ads into the videos, but elsewhere then can be ignored.
This has most recently pissed me off with The MMQB (American football content). It used to be articles, then one day they started putting videos up, above the articles, and now they have the videos there and just start playing them automatically. I want to read an article, not see your ugly mugs! I get this vibe that they want to be TV personalities now, and I’m not digging it.
No, you’re not alone. Even when I try watching the news stories, it usually comes out that they’re not talking about exactly what I want to hear. The headline will read “America’s strategy for ISIS.” I want to know what we’re doing about ISIS, but I end up having to listen to three minutes of what people think about what Trumps thinks we should do. Not only could have read all of that discussion in one minute, but I’d have realized in fifteen seconds that it didn’t have the content I wanted.
It’s pretty hard finding decent news. Recently, I’ve been relying on BBC.com.
I don’t have time for all the BS that goes along with video stories - the “flash” screen, the introduction, the talking head chatter. I just want The Meat. I can read a lot faster than they can show in video, and get more info.
So who ARE these people that prefer video? There must be someone that does.
Video news without much accompanying text is an instant Ctrl+W for me. I understand that the motivation is to get you hooked on the headline and watch to learn more, but if I’m that interested I can also google your headline and learn it from a different site.
Even more annoying are sites where they start streaming automatically, and the video is tiny, and you have to scroll down to reach it, playing “hunt for the video in a wall of still images,” and pause only stops it for a few seconds before a script restarts it again.
The ones I know who use the video treat the website like an interactive broadcast. They’re not looking for specific information and there’s a good chance they’re already looking for the next video while one is still playing. Like a person watching a TV program, they might even be texting or otherwise multitasking while the video is playing.
