Podcast (quoting liberally from the linked article):
[A] digital media file, or a series of such files, that is distributed over the Internet using syndication feeds for playback on portable media players and personal computers. The term, like “radio”, [sic] can refer either to the content itself or to the method by which it is syndicated; the latter is also termed podcasting. The host or author of a podcast is often called a podcaster.
Many shows, both audio and video, are distributed in this manner. TWiT.tv puts out a number of shows on a variety of tech topics, with new episodes delivered weekly. Major networks like MSNBC also syndicate this way. The great majority of this content is completely free. Because the iPod and iTunes were the first hardware/software combo that facilitated this sort of content distribution, the word podcast popped up to illustrate the idea that one could easily subscribe to downloadable content that would be automatically and regularly culled from the Internet and synced to one’s iPod for listening/viewing. Even as the ability to subscribe and sync to this content became more ubiquitous and cross platform, no longer requiring the use of Apple products, the term stuck.
Leo Laporte, head of TWiT.tv, which boasts 280,000 subscribers, recently put up a very interesting post on why the term podcast is not only inaccurate, but downright restrictive and damaging to the entire syndication-based content delivery ecosystem. Definitely worth a read. Consider this excerpt:
I create shows that are distributed on the Internet via download, Flash, and, oh yeah, RSS, but it’s the show that’s the thing. By focusing on the RSS we’ve confused people and limited our audience. Even the word I suggested last year, “netcast,” doesn’t serve. It’s a show, period. It doesn’t matter how it’s distributed. It’s all just content. Tying the content to its method of distribution is confusing our audience and holding us back.
I really agree with what he’s saying, and I’m glad someone so articulate took the time to set it out: it’s all about the content. Reading it made me think of another related point.
Content is not intrinsically more or less interesting or important because of the technology used to deliver it, even though different technologies make different options available.
Imagine, for a moment, that it’s 1943. Citizens of the United States get most of their news and entertainment from the radio, as television has not penetrated the market yet, though some people do own sets. President Roosevelt intends to make a speech on an important issue, knowing it will be distributed live over the radio (and perhaps TV) and then spread across the world in written form by wire services. These three formats each have distinct and unique advantages and disadvantages in terms of accessibility (radios and televisions are accessible to the illiterate/blind while written text is not), penetration (how many people have radios vs those who can buy a newspaper vs those who have a television), storability, and other factors. Intangible characteristics are likewise considerable. Someone reading a copy of the speech wouldn’t be able to hear the inflections in FDRs voice that a radio listener would, and that radio listener would likewise miss clues in the president’s body language. There’s also the economic factor: radio and television are free after initial equipment purchase, or totally free if someone shares their set. Newspapers must be paid for, which causes a problem for the very poor. Radio is also, in this context, the only live option.
While all three mediums excel at presenting information in a specific way, the ideas presented do not change or become more or less valuable based on the method used to share them.
I think it’s particularly important to harp on this in light of the recent attention paid by traditional news sources (large media outlets, including their online arms) to grassroots political organizing and information sharing activity on the Internet. They’ve gone so far as to embrace the term netroots to describe, and I quote:
political activism organized through blogs and other online media, including wikis and social network services. The word is a portmanteau of Internet and grassroots, reflecting the technological innovations that set netroots techniques apart from other forms of political participation. In the United States, the term is used mainly in left-leaning circles.
For two reasons, this term really grates on me, to the point that I actually grit my teeth a bit when I realized I’d have to use it here. First, and definitely less importantly, I’m a computer science major and a technology geek. I absolutely can’t stand it when the mainstream media makes up a new cutesy word to describe a technological concept that doesn’t do anything to help people understand it, and may actually cause problems. In this respect, I cringe whenever I hear anyone blithely start talking about the “netroots” because it’s very close to a term that already has a technical meaning. The Internet root name servers, the thirteen redundant servers that are responsible for making sure domain names (e.g.: www.domain.com) work worldwide. There are thousands (millions?) of other DNS servers in use all around the world, but they depend on the thirteen root nameservers to make sure their information is correct and up to date. Referring to political activists online as “netroots” needlessly muddles the waters and makes explaining the role of the root name servers that much more difficult. (It might not seem like much more difficulty, but host name resolution is already a geeky enough topic that most non-techies don’t even want to think about it to begin with.)
But as annoying as that is, it’s really just a matter of diction. What’s more important in the netroots appellation is the false implication that Internet based activists are somehow significantly different in ideology or aims from those who stick to more traditional methods (the historic grassroots folks). This isn’t the case at all. Yes, using the internet to spread news and information and coordinate low-level campaign volunteers increases one’s reach and the opportunity for personal involvement: citizen-driven political activism limited to local and regional scopes can reach into any home with internet access. Ease of participation (and the fact that one doesn’t have to leave their home if they don’t want to) means Internet-based grassroots activities are far more widespread and visible on a national scale. Still, the content and ideas–the issues that motivate activists, analyses and speeches, etc.–do not change in any significant way just because the internet is being used for communication instead of, say, paper newsletters. Undeniably, more content will be published, and faster, than would have been otherwise, as all that’s needed to put something up on the internet is a free blogging system and time (compare this with the difficulty of creating, mass producing, and distributing a newsletter or pamphlet), but again, ease of publication does not in any substantive way effect the nature of the content (except, perhaps, for the potential lack of copy editing).
Much is also made of the fact that it is the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party that constitutes most bottom-up activity. This is not as newsworthy as the mainstream media would have you believe. Historically, grassroots activists have always been more extreme to a degree than the mainline party machinery, which is constrained by a philosophy of not veering too far from the safe, appeal-to-as-many-people-as-possible path (contrast the grassroots element of the Democratic Party’s enthusiasm for getting out of Iraq as soon as possible with the Democratic Presidential Candidates inability or unwillingness to swear to have the US out of the country by 2013). Activists need not be constrained by the requirements of political gamesmanship, and have no reason to fear expressing more radical (compared to the official party line) opinions. Internet activism has not made people more extreme in their views; it has simply made those whose views are not the mainstream, sanitized-for-TV variety more visible.
The Internet is just a medium, like television or printed news or radio. It does have some very compelling advantages in terms of ease of access and ease of publishing. When people speak of the ‘net as a democratizing force, this is what they’re talking about: never before has it been so easy for the average citizen to be informed and contribute meaningfully to both local and national public debate. The traditional news media are right to emphasis this aspect.
Where they go wrong is by implying, either subtly or overtly, that opinions expressed via online grassroots activities are somehow less valid or more fringe because of source. The source is the electorate, the citizens who voted to put our current officials in office. During the Vietnam War, anti-war activists who campaigned door to door for McCarthy weren’t considered to have fringe ideas–the public widely reviled the war during that period. Their campaign approach sidestepped traditional political machinery, which earned them some ire in certain circles. The establishment did not like McCarthy, to say the least. Modern day political parties likewise try to portray online activists as fringe elements because they are unfiltered and raw and conflict with high-power political maneuvering in Washington. Example: the Democratic Party for a variety of political reasons won’t take a firm stance on ending the war in a given period of time, so they really would rather downplay the idea that online activists represent the desires of the mainstream (as shown by polls) because then they are revealed as not doing at all what they were elected to do in the first place: get us out of Iraq now.
If you want to debate for or against the content and ideas propagated by online activists, do it on the merits of what is or isn’t being said. Don’t try to reject or ridicule something because the medium is new and you don’t understand the mechanics behind it (or can’t gain control of the medium, which seems to be the objection raised by some corners of the mainstream media). That makes just about as much sense as saying a book isn’t as valuable or worthy of consideration because it was made using a printing press and not by hand.
And finally, those trying to rile everyone up by asking the question of whether blogs will replace traditional media are creating a false dichotomy. As I showed with the WWII President Roosevelt hypothetical above, there is no reason multiple mediums cannot and should not coexist. A publisher succeeds or fails on the basis of whether or not their content is worthwhile and accessable. Those who are afraid of blogging are admitting to a tacit fear that their own content is not up to par when competition is available, and that’s another problem (and post) entirely.
[tags]podcast, netcast, rss, ipod, itunes, apple, twit, leo laporte, internet, content, politics, political activism, information, information sharing, netroots, dns, root nameserver, root name server, dns root nameserver, dns root name server, grassroots, grassroots activists, mainstream media, blog, blogs, blogosphere, twit, this week in tech, msnbc[/tags]
Share This
