See below. On 10/6/06, Michael Ryan <michaelrtr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hmmm...guess I'm more of a visual person than an aural person. Except for the voicemail thing, I don't see the advantage. I'd rather read than listen. When I read something, I can stop and mull it over...go back and re-read something to fully understand something. Also, I think there's a restraint of pen and hand when someone is writing something.
That is the benifit of podcasts. Missed something? Rewind and play it again and again. And I'm a huge talk radio fan. Listen to it for two hours/day (my commute).
But I don't treat that as anything but temporary. I wouldn't think of saving it and listening to it again. I don't think the value is there...the thought...the selecting of the right words to make the point or to explain the issue...
For news, that is the case. Anything over a couple days old isn't worth anthing. While not the best example it is the first one I thought of. One Minute How-To (http://podcasternews.com/programs/131/one-minute-how-to/) is a podcast of how-tos. These are timeless, if you need to know how to do something that they covered 2 years ago, most likely it is the same or similar process. While you may not save them all of the computer, the show is still available on the site to listen to it. Like I said, not the best example. Some like visual, some like audio, others like words. One other thing. Most podcasts don't have a given timeframe or length to get all of their information in. So if they normally do around 20 minutes and are on an interesting topic or interview, it might go 1 hour or 2 hours. No newspaper, TV, or talk show can do that. On that subject, all politicians should be doing a podcast. Why? They can make sure the full story is on the record. TV, radio, and newpapers can take things out of context or twist the words for their own agenda. If the politicans had that in a podcast that can't happen.