Both Sue Johnson (Johnson) and Paul Thompson (Thompson) believe that oral history is a great way of recording the experiences and thoughts of the common people. Both point out the fact that random sampling may not work when it comes to oral history and quota sampling may be a better option. This is because women live longer than men and Johnson points out that oral historian always find there are more women than men available for interview. Both authors also point out that one of the greatest concerns about oral history is that human memory suffers over time. Johnson mentions additional factors that may distort the memories of the interviewees such as exposure to media and recent events. But Thompson is quick to note that memory issue plagues other methods of recording history, too because written accounts do not always immediately follow the actual events.

One of the advantages of oral history is that some cultures preserve their history better through oral tradition than the mainstream media. Thompson gives the example of French Protestants of the mountain Cevennes whose understanding of the guerilla campaign against Louis XIV was more accurate than the official and newspaper reports of the period itself. Another advantage of oral history is that it allows us to look at the viewpoints of common people and compare them with official descriptions to gain better understanding of the history. There are certain pitfalls when it comes to oral history especially with the evolution of technology because now it is digitally possible to mimic human speech. One could present bogus interviews as actual interviews for propaganda purpose. A strict standard that requires source verification by multiple independent entities may be one solution. Another potential problem is the difficulty of verifying whether the interviewees are really being honest in their descriptions or are presenting biased opinions. Thus, there are both advantages and disadvantages but like other methods of recording history, oral history has its place and there are circumstances where oral history is the only option left, for e.g. there were or are societies that have never maintained written records.