I think most people probably prefer the format that best fits the content. In this case a live interview is best served by the original video and not someone trying to content farm it into an article. The ads this person has chosen for their site are also incredibly distasteful.
Such an assertion given that confidently demands a source. I very much doubt most people have such an overwhelming preference towards reading that they’d prefer to read an automated transcript which may contain inaccuracies over watching the ten minute source. If what you said is true, YouTube’s most popular feature would be downloading subtitles.
I don’t mean a peer reviewed study as a source, we’re not evaluating a paper here. Rather, I was looking for any kind of justification to that user’s claim, because it sounded like one of those “this what I want, thus it’s what most people want too” cases. That idea is further reinforced from the other comments they got.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=OvuEYtkOH88&t=20m30s