When reading cnn.com, washingtonpost.com and especially local news sites, it seems increasingly common that the "news" articles are in video form as opposed to the traditional news article. While the nytimes.com doesn't seem to have succumbed to the ubiquitous use of video (though it still uses some) I can only imagine it's merely a matter of time.
I don't know if it's laziness on the reporter's part who don't want to take the time to write about the news of the day, or whether is is laziness on the reader's part not wanting to take time to read an article. The thing is, there are some headlines that seem genuinely interesting but clicking on it means I have to watch a video. Most of these are amateurish and not nearly as informed as a written article would be. While some people believe a picture is worth a thousand words, a crappy video is worth none; especially when I have to wait for it to load, watch an annoying commercial, and find headphones to listen.
Does this bug you, too?
Tags: