I don’t think I’d agree.
This suggests that any medium out of that “wider bandwidth” is more or less equivalent, which I also don’t think I’d agree with–and more to the point, Gordon definitely wouldn’t agree, and spends a good part of that book explaining why. Media are not value-neutral–different media do different things, they reflect different values, and we consume them in different ways.
One of the bigger issues, IMO, is that it’s much harder to follow a closely-reasoned argument by audio or video than it is in writing–our minds don’t work the same way when reading as when watching. We’re aware of that, and we generally write differently than we speak (which is why a bunch of topical sermons compiled into a book, however brilliant of a preacher he may have been, make for a tough read–for a modern example of this, see D. Martin Lloyd-Jones’ Spiritual Depression).
When I read Gordon’s book, I was somewhat skeptical of his premise. But with more observation, I’m more convinced he’s got a point that we ignore at our peril. A situation that went a long way toward convincing me involved the mess Volkswagen got in some years back–you’ll likely recall that they got in trouble (all around the world, but especially in the US) over the diesel models. A number of US government agencies sued, and eventually reached a settlement which was (IMO) very generous to owners of those cars. But in an online community very interested in the settlement, it struck me that very few of the participants could actually parse the settlement documents to understand what they were saying, and thus what they were entitled to.
“But that’s legalese,” you may be thinking. Not really, no. Legalese isn’t Klingon; it’s simply English with a little bit of specialized vocabulary (most of which would be defined in the document, as it was in this case). But it does use more complicated sentence and paragraph structure than most popular-level writing, and it often carries a thought through a number of pages of discussion. Most of the participants on that forum just weren’t able to follow it.
Of course, the Bible isn’t a settlement agreement, but in some cases it presents greater challenges. The settlement agreement was a modern document, written in modern English, and in a single, obvious genre. The Bible, meanwhile, was written 2000-3500 years ago, not in English, and in a variety of genera, which are occasionally not obvious.