Street interview videos
After watching a couple of street interview videos on YouTube, it makes one wonders why some of the findings and responses are so far fetched from reality as a whole. That is relatively easy to tell if you happen to live in the same country and have done some research relating to the content. It seems to be skewed in a certain direction, probably one that the interviewer or the story-teller hopes it goes with the purpose of attracting viewers’ traction or spur certain reactions from their audience.
Often, when one is viewing videos online, it’s rare for us to think critically about the content and the message that the creator is trying to conveyed. What’s the purpose of the video? Gaining viewership? Or are there other hidden messages behind the them? Was the video sponsored? Was is relating to a greater societal concerns or economic concerns of the general public that’s of recent trend? What’s the motivation of making the video? Is the message mostly opinionated or factual? Does it give a full picture of the issue or is it only a subset of the picture?
If you observe more closely…
#1 — Place of interview
Depending on where the street interview takes place, the respondents of the interview may be skewed towards a certain group. If you are interview in the city, you’ll tend to encounter certain demographics more as opposed to the heartlands. If the interview is about “how much someone earns in the city?”, it’s definitely more on average as opposed to industrial or heartlands. The type of career and job they have would also skewed in a certain way. Consider if the you are comparing the information fairly, especially when you think about your current role and compensation.
#2 — The Questions
Listen to the actual questions that the interviews asked in the audio. However, some might not include the actual questions for all the respondents. Depending on how the questions are being asked, respondents may respond differently. Is the question posed neutrally? Was it a leading question? Was it a yes/no question or open-ended? Was the question intentionally to probe certain details? Was it a hypothetical or reflective questions? Suppose the interview only talks about compensation in terms of actual figures without probing into the respondents’ background, education, experience, achievements, age, scope of role and other non-monetary benefits, can we really absorb the information and derive a fair judgement from it. It’s definitely good to share information especially when information benefits the public when disclosed. However, disclosing only a subset of information might also result in a biased judgement and comparison by the audience.
#3 — The Body Language
It’s possible that the respondent is affected by the body language of an interviewer or a group of interviewer, videographers and crews. Being surveyed, it’s not just once that I have experienced interviewer circling rating they are hoping your answer would be before you even spoke. There were even instances where they asked you to change your rating after you have spoken your mind. For street interviews, interactions between the interviewer, respondents and whoever else on the street could influence the type of responses that one give and what one can share. Only the commonly/socially/publicly acceptable answers? Wait, how open are the people in the country or city? How would others on street view you when you are responding openly in public? How would the audience of the video view your responses?
#4 — The Sample
Interviews are resource intensive, hence, usually only a small handful of people are featured in the video. Furthermore, the respondents could be self-selective (i.e., more willing to answer the topic in question), which may lead to biases in the responses. Given that the sample is small and respondents could be self-selective, it’s better to consider that when integrating the message of the videos in conversations and references.
Yet, if we don’t trust the information at face value, it’ll probably result in more work on our end to verify and validate the information that’s put across. It’s just too much work with no remuneration. Unless one is interested and curious about the topic, or have a vested interest, it’s rare that one would validate the information that they have come across.
