“Miss, for a dollar, name a reason why street interviews are a bad thing”

If you have surfed internet long enough, you have probably stumbled upon excerpts of street interviews from billyonthestreettv, like this one. The almost 3.5 million views and 84k likes indicate that generally people find this funny and/or entertaining. This particular video has been on YouTube for 10 years now and throughout the time, just like with everything else, we can definitely notice changes in the way these street interviews take place. 

For one, social media has changed the way we consume information. Quite a lot of content seems to be produced with the intent to be entertaining rather than qualitative or educating (which does not have to be perceived as a bad thing always). One of the trends that have gained a significant traction in the recent years are these street interviews – pop quizzes, hypothetical wouldyourathers and “What song are you listening to?”. While a lot of the time, like in the example of billyonstreettv video, they are harmless and potentially informative, these types of interviews have a list of cons as well, which I think needs to be acknowledged more. 

The list of cons (my interpretation)

1. Where’s the context?

Quick, impersonal street interviews often lack context, necessary context. Without it, it is rather easy to manipulate the responses and to misinterpret the video. More often than not these encounters are edited, portraying the interviewees in a bad light or making fun of them.

2. What about privacy?

Surely lines of what is deemed as acceptable to film in public are becoming more blurrier as we go, however these types of interviews in a way really push on the boundaries of them. Not always the content creators leave out of the videos the people who did not answer their questions and they can potentially be exposed to unwanted attention.

3. Is it legal to manipulate the video material?

People often do not truly realise the power that video (and photo) editing can bring. The content creator has the ability to shift and shape the video material in any way they please. It is possible to make the people appear more aligned with certain views, which maybe they normally do not hold… or to just simply make people look dumb for entertainment purposes. An example:

@faithalexah

moral of the story don’t make assumptions about people after a 15 second video thank u goodbye #fyp #newyearseve

♬ original sound – Faith Alexa 💐🪩

4. Oversimplification of complex issues.

Since street interviews are usually quick, they tend to show complex matters compressed into few seconds, at best few minutes. This, of course, also contributes to misinterpretation and misrepresentation of important matters. It can be difficult to show a comprehensive understanding of such contested topics in a short matter of time, therefore making these types of videos not good for starting public discourse.  

Which leads me to my last point…

5. Breeding grounds for sensationalism and stereotypes

Taking into account the previous points, street interviews are easy to use for sensationalised content in hopes to attract more viewers and engagement. Provoking questions, limited amount of time (like *really* limited) and manipulations in the editing process often create controversies out of thin air. Sensationalism potentially leads to stereotypes, cyberbullying and harassment.

In conclusion, while street interviews on social media can be entertaining and engaging, they do come with pitfalls. As consumers, it is crucial to be critical of the videos we watch and to promote responsible and ethical practices in online media creation. Street interviews have the potential to inform and entertain, but they also have the potential to harm, and it’s important to find a balance that respects the rights and dignity of all involved.

Tags: Street Interviews