Podcasting 101

Podcasts are a very interesting medium that has strongly emerged over the last few years. There are many benefits to the technology, as special interest demand on the Internet has skyrocketed. Even if a podcast has only a few subscribers, it is usually profitable as podcasts are very inexpensive to produce. This benefits the provider with profits, while the audience benefits by having their interests met.

Certain topics of podcasts are subscribed to more often than others, many of these being popular figures and characters in our popular culture. Podcasts are used for everything including news, sports, television programs, business, comedy, education, government, music, science, and culture. With the emergence of Web 2.0, more and more people are directly accessing the information they want rather than sitting in front of a television and viewing what they're given. This is what gives podcasting limitless opportunities.

Personally, I do not regularly listen to any podcasts, although I can't really pinpoint a reason as to why not. Time is a large factor, as a web developer, I spend large amounts of time in front of a computer screen for my job and school work. When I do get some free time, I usually relax and watch a few recorded DVR episodes (DVR is quite comparable to podcasting in the sense of user control), get some exercise, or just relax with friends. I'm not exactly aching to spend that free time listening/watching podcasts on the Internet. Perhaps if podcasting made the jump to television (even though there's hardly any difference between the viewing experience), where they could be accessed from something similar to a DVR menu, I would feel more inclined to watch them.

I also feel that the name "podcast" has kept the technology from being completely accepted by our culture. While it's probably much too late to change it, I feel that many adults not of the Internet generation don't really know what a podcast is. When a technology has a potentially confusing name, it only deters people from using it.

"I don't think they will be as talked about in a year's time"

The first thing that jumped out at me about the first article was a quote from Mike Smartt, editor of BBC News Online.

"It's like all stuff on the web. Dissemination of information is great, but how much of it is trustworthy? They are an interesting phenomenon, but I don't think they will be as talked about in a year's time."

This article was published May 25, 2003 (correct me if I'm wrong, Europe does their dates all funny like) Well, here we are not one, but six years later still talking about it. Not only are we talking about it, but "it" or blogging and other web 2.0 technologies are growing exponentially. Good thing that guys an editor and not anyone's adviser.

The main argument of these two sources is whether or not blogging can be considered journalism. Robert L. Belichick, a regular blogger, expresses a very good and relevant point in an interview with dotJournalsim.

"The main reason for going to the blogs is for information that will never see the light of day in the print or TV media realm. I am not sure if blogging is journalism, but I do believe it is more responsible than the media. Remember the bloggers are not sponsored or beholden to the six major companies that own the media in the US."

I feel like this is very true. Because of Web 2.0 technologies, people are now directly seeking the information we want, as opposed to watching a news broadcast, and receiving the information we're presented. I feel like this demand for information is directly linked to recent frustration and unrest when dealing with our mass media, as well as our government. Our new president Barack Obama played off this frustration by calling out the media and our government on their wrongdoings. My point here is that when arguing the credibility of blogging and other web 2.0 technologies, what exactly is your definition of credible? If we're comparing blogging to the mass media, I'm afraid I'd much rather have blogging.

Many journalists are worried that blogging will take over newspapers and news broadcasts, thus leaving them out of a job. I don't empathize with them on this because in my opinion, they should respond by working to raise positive perception of the media by producing a higher-quality product. Matt Haughey, creator of Metafilter.com told dotJournalism:

"While people from journalism backgrounds tend to say they aspire to the high ideals of truth, fairness, and accuracy, I don't think the output of most newspapers comes close to that. When I'm reading a blog that features reportage or fact-checking, I can determine myself if the author is being factual because they'll reveal their sources in links, and I can read up on them to determine how impartial they are being."

In summary, I do believe blogging can be equated to journalism, but one must keep in mind what makes them different. Using bloggs as an informational source can be very useful, but as Matt Haughey reminds us, it's a good idea to cross check the blog's references and sources.

In the end, if the journalists would quit whining and concentrate more on producing true journalstic content, I think citizen journalsim can tremendously help the field of journalism. I feel that modern day journalism tends to be dry, hard-cut facts with an equally boring picture to go with it. Hopefully, blogging will up the ante for the quality of mainstream journalism.

Blog Response to Tim O'Reilly Interview on Web 2.0

This interview covered a variety of Web 2.0 topics, including it's past, present, and possible future's. Tim O'Reilly began by explaining the Web 2.0 ideology and how the concept came about. After the burst of the dot-com bubble, the few internet businesses that were left truly understood the value of network effects. Tim says that networking is now the primary model of internet communication, which is what is was originally designed for. In order to be successful, he says companies must truly understand how people value content. Tim then gave his most consise definition of Web 2.0 as a design of systems that get better the more people use them.

Next, Tim was asked about the future of the Internet and social networking. While he gave no predictions, he cited networking and collaboration trends of the past as an example. He says that the Internet now is a result of people learning the medium, adapting to it, and gaining a certain level of comfort with it. This is something we're also seeing with mobile phones, which Tim projected as the medium that will drive innovation in the future.

Next Tim talks about Twitter in the interview, describing its fuctions and uses. Previously, I really didn't see any practical use for Twitter, but after listening to the interview, I can see how it would be nice to have that percieved closeness with family members you may not get to see or talk to every day.

After a questions sparked by an employee of the government, Tim talks about what different governemtn agencies are doing to use the Internet as a useful tool. This is another topic he believes will continue to evolve.

The interview was wrapped up with Tim making a few predictions for the future. He beleives mobile phones will slowly make PCs less needed. He says using your PC as a control center for your phone seems like a direction many people are going, as many people are interacting with their phones more than their personal computers. Tim also said the keyboard may be replaced in time by other user interfaces and data entry methods.

I enjoyed the interview, and I think it's a very exciting time for the Internet, and I can't wait to see the direction that it takes.

First Blog Entry

I wrote a blog entry. Yaaaaaaaay