Here's something odd. The only few books I intently read and gained a true understanding without distraction from context were fundamentals of structural analysis topics while studying engineering in school. Not your typical pieces of literature, and to most, not of interest. I believe this format for this particlar information was best in text and image format due to its diagrammatic representation of knowledge and reason. Realizing this, I knew general text in non diagram/visual format was left lacking in utility, at least for me.
I've come to learn after my formal education that the rate at which I am able to learn is vastly superior in auditory format over text. In my mid-twenties I discovered optional playback speed settings of videos on the internet. For me, the option to increase speed not only allowed me to consume more information in less time, but increased my ability to focus on topics at hand.
The more I increase playback speed of audio, the more I'm able to retain focus and interest. This is so peculiar to me. I know I'm not dumb. I know I'm able to absorb complex information so long as it's of presented in the right format. I know reading written text is reliable, but I can imagine not unlike many others it's not more reliable as a means for knowledge acquisition.
Then comes YouTube, a behemoth of auditory information. Fun fact regarding Wikipedia: you're unable to cite information from direct coverage of phenomena in videos, but you're able to cite third party institutional text/articles that translate information of content in videos. If that's not subject to unreliability of interprative transcription, then I don't know what is. This is a violation of the given that individual thinkers are able to follow analytical arguments without the privilege of institutional gatekeeping. See gated institutional narrative.
Over the last decade after college I've listened to hundreds of freely available in-depth lectures and discussions covering what seems to span all general knowledge. I have come to believe audio/visual information may be the way in which people could reliably and rightfully have a "seat at the table" for general public sense making. I would not be able to consume and interperet this information as reliably had I done so in text formt, and I believe a massive amount of the population falls in the same category.
It's easier to notice misleading information in the audio/visual format than it is in written text. I don't think anyone could argue that it's easier to know when someone's full of crap behind the veil of abstract text versus in person. I don't think many people would disagree. I think this is one of the reasons why mainstream media is able to hold the reigns of general narratives. Truth tends to be held by those who seemingly are better adapted to appear equipped to interpret discussions in context. It's as if knowledge is only legitimate if it's in text format and if you're the first to read it, no matter the interpretation. I see this as convenient sidestepping by institutional gatekeepers to keep power, or worse, to unknowingly be used by third party interests to force narratives for general power against the interest of the individual citizen.
Please consider my other thoughts.