Re: Podcasts

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.