I listened to one interview and read a bit of a transcript. It made me think about the relationship between history and journalism. A journalist also uses the interview technique, but the item only gets published if the journalist or publisher decides it is in the public interest or entertaining or of particular relevance to their readership. The journalist would edit the interview.

However, the historian would also edit to demonstrate the particular point they wish to make. They also want to capture the reader’s attention. The excerpt they use needs to be relevant. Like a journalist the historian may be communicating to the general public or they may be communicating with a particular group.

In publishing all the interviews you are taking an archivist’s approach.

The various professions do not have clear cut boundaries.