The luxury of oral history in audio form, in traditional audio form, is that you have the luxury to forget that anyone else is ever going to hear it. It feels like an illusion that anyone else is going to ever hear it or read it. And the interviewer's job, of course, is to remind you all the way through that you are speaking to history. When you began to talk about yourself too self-reverentially or too idiosyncratically, it's the job of the interviewer to remind you that you worked in an institution where lots of other people face these same obstacles, and that's fun for us to do, it's fun. But when the camera's there, you don't have to remind the person that they're speaking to history. So the down side is, it seems that there's less of an opportunity for reflection. If you notice the pace of speech on audio versus video, with some exceptions . . . Tutu's a marvelous example, he's always in control of the velocity of the interview, he's a master however. Most people when they speak before a camera, the velocity shifts, and they speak a little more quickly, they're conscious of the time-money relationship. So they may not digress, in the wonderful way that oral historians love, into the personal story as often. And it's through of course those personal stories, those anecdotes that we understand how human consciousness is formed and how leadership is formed, and why people do what they want to do, which is what we're interested in as oral historians. So we need still the more relaxed audio format in which we can make those explorations. So I think the differences may seem subtle at first, but if you really engage the process seriously you'll see that they're substantive as well as subtle.