Well, we’ll have to wait and see how it gets used but I see potential for this being abused.
It’s not different from TV news vs Daily newspaper. One is more fluff than the other. When was the last time you saw an “ugly” news anchor. In the papers you don’t care what the reporter looks like.
During a sit down interview you at least have a chance to make your argument if the interviewer has misconceived something or it needs elaboration.
>When was the last time you saw an “ugly” news anchor. In the papers you don’t care what the reporter looks like.
To be completely honest, I don't care what the reporter looks like in either case. But I'm going to presume this was a rhetorical question and not meant as a reply or question to my specific manner of news consumption?
You'll have to forgive me (or, well you don't have to, that's up to you) but this still feels like putting the career carriage in front of the job prospect horse to me-for some reason. Perhaps said another way: none of what you said speaks to me to be a problem with the medium of interviewing (in this case video, ostensibly via tiktok), but instead rather the individuals participating in the process.
I can't quite pin down why, but it's a very strong sensation. I'll take this elsewhere and find a way to reconcile it without going turtles all the way down here in the thread.
It’s not different from TV news vs Daily newspaper. One is more fluff than the other. When was the last time you saw an “ugly” news anchor. In the papers you don’t care what the reporter looks like.
During a sit down interview you at least have a chance to make your argument if the interviewer has misconceived something or it needs elaboration.
reply