@emilygorcenski Who needs writing when we have endless video of the events from the ground level? We can watch the BLM protests unfold before our very eyes. We don't have to rely on secondhand accounts. That seems like a big step up to me.
@LouisIngenthron @emilygorcenski
As a writer and photographer, I would like to think that both words and video contribute meaningfully to history in their own ways. And of course, photos and video are not fully accessible without captioning and narration.
@funcrunch @emilygorcenski Yeah, I agree with that. I suppose to some degree they serve different purposes; i.e. recording objective facts vs subjective experiences.
@funcrunch @emilygorcenski Of course. Context always matters, which is why full raw originals are better than the sanitized short clips we so often see on social media.
But in terms of the historical record, I'd like to think those full raw videos are what's being preserved (i.e. as evidence in the J6 case).
Although the interesting thing to me is that we seek to preserve these things knowing that most humans in our generation will never seek them out, and even fewer in future generations will.... it will primarily be limited to historians who then summarize the events for their generation through their own personal/societal biases.
@LouisIngenthron @emilygorcenski
I would be careful about assuming that a video presents "objective facts" nowadays. Even without sophisticated tools, videos can be edited to suit a particular narrative.