Pew is examining news consumption in a basic sensory way, dividing it between eyes and ears instead of the usual press vs TV vs social media.
Conclusion: Most people prefer to get information by watching reality, not hearing or reading. Live event, not verbal description. This has remained CONSTANT during recent decades as press and radio and TV lost out to computers and iPhones.
Do we prefer seeing (and hearing) the event itself, or do we want to hear or read a journalist or podcaster talking about the event?
Going back before TV makes the answer clear. We want the event itself.
One step back: Silent newsreels began in 1895, showing the event itself. (Usually staged.) Later they added sound effects and narration. The TV talking head developed in the 1950s, just putting a camera in front of a radio announcer. TV’s original selling point was live sports, not talking heads. Now after the rest of TV has declined, live sports are still the main selling point.
Two steps back, probably the clearest expression of the categories: Courts prefer eyewitness testimony and discard hearsay testimony.
Three steps back: What about the sound of the event vs the sight of the event? When I hear a mysterious noise in the neighborhood, I can’t properly identify it until I see** what’s happening. Sound is less precise than sight.
= = = = =
** Irrelevant sidenote: I was thinking of specific examples, wind gust vs jet plane or mice in cabinet vs birds on roof. Realized an odd non-bark: I haven’t heard ANY jet planes in many months. Previously jet planes were a nearly constant background, at least once an hour. In rainy weather they flew low, sometimes sounding dangerously close. What happened? Did the flight paths change earlier this year? The halt was well before the “shutdown,” maybe a year ago? Halts of routine events are always hard to quantify.
Polistra's Mill 