At the 1964 World’s Fair in New York City, AT&T introduced a futuristic new technology called the “Picturephone.” It let attendees hear—and see—who was on the other end of a long-distance phone call. The phone company, then the only one serving nearly the entire country, then tried to launch it as a commercial service between public locations in New York, Washington, and Chicago.
Unfortunately, a three-minute Picturephone call cost from 16 to 27 bucks at the time. That top rate would be near $300 in 2026 dollars. The technology didn’t catch on and faded into the same failed promises of the future—like those flying cars we are still waiting for.
We were reminded of the promise of the Picturephone because, like many folks, we have been consuming more podcasts as part of our regular media diet. Recent estimates from Edison Research put weekly podcast “consumption” at about 130 million Americans, a number that has grown year over year. Part of that growth is coming from people watching video versions of what were once audio-only productions, which is why Edison now measures “consumption” rather than “listening.”
Video podcasts seem to fall into a few different production styles. Many are still solo productions, featuring a single person, typically speaking directly to camera. Then there are the interview podcasts, which usually take one of two forms: an in-person exchange between two (or more) people, with the now-standard look of large microphones on those flexible arms visible in the camera shots. The other style features participants in different locations, connected by video conferencing technology. In these situations, the visible microphones are usually paired with visible headphones, giving the production a very “inside-the-studio” feel.
We point out this difference because interview quality can vary significantly depending on how it is conducted. When participants are in the same room, eye to eye, it feels much more like a conversation. But when participants are in separate locations, the interaction often feels very different, more like 1964’s Picturephone.
It all just lacks that crucial intimacy of speaking to another person face to face.
We think local TV newsrooms can take an important lesson from this.
During the COVID pandemic, television news had to quickly embrace video conferencing for doing interviews. Every newsroom leaned on the same Zoom and Teams calls that corporate America still uses for its countless daily meetings.
Alas, the pandemic ended, but the video call as a staple for news interviews didn’t.
We still see them throughout many local newscasts, and we think they’re worse for it.
Whether it’s a newscast or a podcast, the art of the interview demands that both parties be in the same place. Can you imagine the legendary Mike Wallace confronting someone via a Zoom call? Sure, a great reporter can conduct a tough interview via just about any means—but a silent stare after a waffling answer has a much different impact when done in person across a desk, rather than across the internet.
Of course, both government officials and public relations professionals have realized that only agreeing to a video call lets them manage the situation more easily and even end the interview on their own terms. They control everything from how they look to being able to dodge a question with the excuse, “Sorry, your audio cut out for a moment there.” And for the news reporters and MMJs with demands to produce an ever-increasing amount of content, opting for interviews that don’t require them to leave the newsroom—or even their home—can be an attractive alternative.
From our perspective, we would urge TV newsrooms to make such interviews the rare exception rather than the default method they have seemingly become. If there is absolutely no other way to do the interview in person, a video call is preferable to not getting an on-camera interview at all.
But for heaven’s sake, let’s please put some effort into making the quality of the thing as good as possible—at least on the newsroom end. We’ve seen too many reporters and anchors on their side of video calls look like they’re using a webcam made before Y2K. And the overhead fluorescent lighting in many newsrooms does no one’s face any favors.
Viewers are now somewhat forced to watch all video with a more discerning eye, if only to determine whether what they are watching is real—or something hallucinated by all of the AI tools that seem to get better by the day. So let’s not force them to question what it is they are seeing on the news.
Not too long ago, the radio giant iHeart started opening their podcasts with an announcer stating: “This is an iHeart Podcast…guaranteed human.” The first time we heard that disclaimer, we dismissed it as just some unnecessary branding puffery.
Now it sounds like a promise a listener—or a viewer—might come to depend on.
Like they used to on their local news.
-30-
Cheap and easy. This has been bothering me for a while, not as much as vertical video, but I digress - I have never heard a compelling soundbite from a ZOOM interview. Never. No not one. And don't get me started on how tired I am at looking up their noses.