Opaque Lucidity

Curry-gate

If you're a techie type, you probably know the story by now: Adam Curry was caught editing the "podcasting" entry on Wikipedia. His changes appear to have given him more credit for the invention of podcasting, even though the medium really has no date of invention; it is merely a new delivery system for internet audio. The real credit, in my opinion, should go to the person who came up with RSS 2.0, which is how podcasts are delivered. But I digress.

For those of you who are non-geeks, let me bring you up to speed. Adam Curry is a former DJ who became well-known for his stint as a VJ on MTV between 1987 and 1994. He got in early on the tech boom by starting and selling a few small outfits. He has been dubbed (by who, I'm not sure) the Podfather because of his promotion of podcasting. There is some debate as to who came up with what idea and even who first coined the term "podcasting". It may seem trivial, but as I know from research I have done on numerous topics, it's important to get the history right.

I've been listening to Curry's Daily Source Code podcast for almost a year now. I loved the show in the beginning because Curry's enthusiasm for the medium is amazing. In fact, his show and an article I read about him in Wired magazine are the main reasons I began podcasting----I had something to say and I understood the mechanics of the technology. I still listen to every episode, but I find myself skipping over a lot of stuff. I guess I'm just listening for important announcements.

As David Lawrence has said, Curry and the people like him have popular podcasts because they are "professional" radio people who know how to broadcast. I'm more than a little offended by that remark because a) it smacks of elitism and b) Lawrence is, in general, an asshat. I had the opportunity to be on the radio for a time and I certainly was not impressed with the intelligence or creativity of most of the "professionals" employed by the station (50,000 watt AM talk). It is my opinion that anyone can be at least an average broadcaster given enough time. People who talk about the "art" of broadcasting are, to my way of thinking, just worried about losing their jobs.

The Curry Affair proves what I have witnessed firsthand: most people in media are so scared of being moved off the front page or losing their time slot or audience that they will steal from the grandmother if it helps their image or numbers. It's understandable for many reasons, but you have to understand that you must have a substantial ego to go into broadcasting in the first place (I include myself in that---if I were popular enough, I would be an egomaniac until Kelli and/or Peter reigned me in ;-). It's natural to assume that professionals will act the same way when it comes to podcasting. THAT is what happens when old media guys step in.

I like podcasting because anyone with a microphone can do it. That means a certain percentage of shows are poor in quality and/or content, but that's the way it goes. Some 'casts are intended for friends, family or a small group of people with a similar passion. For these shows, subscriber numbers mean very little. Numbers matter to me because I see them as a measure of how well done my show is. Also, I would like to eventually land enough sponsors to pay for my bandwidth. I will never be among those rare individuals who get to stay home and podcast full-time, but it would certainly be nice.

Although there is a marketplace for people to make money in podcasting, I hope that there will always be an audience for those who do it for the love of the medium. If not, I fear we will see the same giant egos fighting it out for our time and attention.