Re:AT&T Archives: The Unix Operating System [video] (1982)
by dredmorbius on Saturday August 28, 2021 @12:54PM
(#28339501)
This is a scripted, edited, and produced video. It was probably created with a total production timeline of many months. It's both educational and promotional, and was probably used both internally and externally by AT&T.
As others have noted, quality video content was still comparatively scarce, there wasn't much competing content (and certainly little on-demand as today). Long slow introductions were an opportunity for either assembled or broadcast audiences to settle in for the programme, as opposed today where a single video creation is competing from the first second to establish its interest and credibility.
The people interviewed are also at the top of their professions and game. They're not fighting to establish credibility, or promoting themselves within a field (though they might well be engaged in politicking internally within AT&T for budget, status, and resources).
By contrast, much (though not all) of what's created today is:
- Unscripted
- Unedited, has very minimal editing, or is poorly edited.
- Competes against a tremendous set of alternative content.
- Has short production cycles.
- Is mostly produced by individuals trying desperately to prove their own relevance.
- Is often created by (or about) people who are far from proficient, knowledgable, or, in an increasing number of cases, even remotely sane.
There are exceptions on both sides, and we suffer from several biases: survival bias of old works (crap production tends not to be retained or surfaced), familiarity bias with new works (we don't appreciate what's current or easily available). There were certainly numerous charlatans and frauds on video and audio before 2010. And there are people today who put out high-quality content that's well-prepared, scripted, and produced (Tom Scott, Derek Muller, and Destin Sandlin of YouTube all come to mind). The sober stuff produced today competes poorly against all the hyperactive instant-gratification of today. Though on reflection, AT&T's production probably didn't rate highly at the time against game shows and soap operas either.
As others have noted, quality video content was still comparatively scarce, there wasn't much competing content (and certainly little on-demand as today). Long slow introductions were an opportunity for either assembled or broadcast audiences to settle in for the programme, as opposed today where a single video creation is competing from the first second to establish its interest and credibility.
The people interviewed are also at the top of their professions and game. They're not fighting to establish credibility, or promoting themselves within a field (though they might well be engaged in politicking internally within AT&T for budget, status, and resources).
By contrast, much (though not all) of what's created today is:
- Unscripted
- Unedited, has very minimal editing, or is poorly edited.
- Competes against a tremendous set of alternative content.
- Has short production cycles.
- Is mostly produced by individuals trying desperately to prove their own relevance.
- Is often created by (or about) people who are far from proficient, knowledgable, or, in an increasing number of cases, even remotely sane.
There are exceptions on both sides, and we suffer from several biases: survival bias of old works (crap production tends not to be retained or surfaced), familiarity bias with new works (we don't appreciate what's current or easily available). There were certainly numerous charlatans and frauds on video and audio before 2010. And there are people today who put out high-quality content that's well-prepared, scripted, and produced (Tom Scott, Derek Muller, and Destin Sandlin of YouTube all come to mind). The sober stuff produced today competes poorly against all the hyperactive instant-gratification of today. Though on reflection, AT&T's production probably didn't rate highly at the time against game shows and soap operas either.