When I first met the internets, back in the late 90s, I was smitten. Here, at last, is the news of the world delivered in text that is updated faster (and cleaner--no ink smudges) than newspapers. When the internets moved to commentary, and democracy exploded into all its pluralistic glory, and debate came, things got even better. Slate.com was all a part of that.
But now, the love is fading, the old magic is just beginning to slip. I don't know why the stupid assumption that "video trumps text" brought on the "podcast" craze or the uTube revolution, but it breaks my heart.
I used to read summary judgment religiously; now I cannot even access it because I want to *read*. Reading is crucial: it means I can reread something I didn't get the first time, look up words or terms I didn't know, I could take my time and think about what was being communicated. Video is banality for precisely these same reasons: if you stop to think about what the video just said, you miss the next moment of the video and end up further behind!
Perhaps you think I could rewind it? Tell me all about all the rewinding *you* do of your videos, how you watch and rewatch them so that you can think about their nuances. Or do you just prefer not having to work that hard? Video gives you that: you just bask in its glow flowing by you, moment after moment.
Even Prudie does video now! Sorry, Prudie: but advice-columns are supposed to be in *columns*, not in buffering. You don't even look particularly comfortable doing these spots, like the novice TV anchor who can't get used to thinking of the object-camera as having the personae of the members of an audience.
Continue the video madness if you must (though it is not what you are good at, nor is it what draws your *readership* to you), but I beg you--bring back the text. It's the only thing my relationship with the internet has left to build on.
