Not only do you get a completely accurate record of what was said without having to write down the answers quickly yourself, viewers also get to hear the local dialects. For example, in my interview with Tyler you can clearly hear the different Newfoundland dialects between the two of us and can tell before finding out in the recording that we are from different areas. However, having an audio-recorded interview tends to have some negatives too. Being recorded in general tends to make most people nervous as well as being interviewed. Putting the two together can caused quite a bit of anxiety about the situation that can come through in the recording. Also, audio-recording versus video-recording does not allow viewers to see the facial expressions or actions of the person interview which is also a negative of hand written …show more content…
As the interviewer, you get to experience the person being interviewed by getting to know them as a person and see just who they are for yourself. Also, you get to relive their tale with them which makes the whole project feel more personal. As for the story being told, an audio-recorded interview can capture the emotions of the interview/story, give extra perspective from that particular person and their family, and you have the option of getting modern opinion on the topic. Not only is a modern opinion an option but also you can get a newer generations perspective on something that extends far into the past, like that of the foodways covered in the interview mentioned above. Overall, although library or archive based papers can have some useful information in them, you will not gain the understanding on the subject like you would if an audio-recorded oral interview was conducted on the subject of