Friday, July 24, 2009

Podcasts: Media Democracy, Whenever You Want It

Journey:


National Public Radio is doing it. The Economist magazine is doing it. Your own sister may even be doing it.

Podcasting has become an international phenomenon that may change the very nature of television and radio. Yet relatively few people know what it is, and even fewer have yet to grasp its potential.

In the simplest of terms, a podcast is an audio file. Much like an mp3, you can download it from the Internet onto your computer or iPod, and then listen to it at your leisure. The most obvious advantage of this format is that, unlike a conventional broadcast, you don’t have to be tuned in at a particular time or place to receive it.

But there’s so much more about podcasting that makes it more attractive than “traditional” media.

Dan Carlin should know. Since 1989, he’s been immersed in media production, first on television and later on the radio. Today he makes his living as the host of two podcasts – Common Sense with Dan Carlin, a righteously indignant political talk show, and Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History, wherein he recounts historical events through narrative.

Carlin was an early adaptor. Back in 1995 – ten years before the first modern podcasts – he was hosting a radio program called Crossfire. “I got a call from a guy from a software company,” he says, “and he offered to pay me more than I was making at that time.” He ended up working on a project with a web development company called Homebrew Networks that would put his audio content on the Internet.

“We wanted to demonstrate to people what was possible,” he says. Thus was born the first incarnation of his Common Sense show.

Carlin believes that podcasting can raise the bar of public discourse, especially among youth. “The level of engagement is much different,” he says. “We get a lot more college-aged people than we ever did before. We’re reaching segments of the population that it’s important to reach. When you’re that age, you’re still idealistic about politics. By the time people reach the age of the average radio listener, they’re done thinking about it.”

Since 2005, podcasting and its video counterpart – known as vodcasting – have blossomed, driven particularly by young web natives. The ability to access a file from any computer in the world at virtually no extra cost to the provider (or the listener) makes it an enticingly inexpensive investment with a limitless possibility for exposure. Unlike television, newspapers, and radio, there are no transmitters, presses, or other distribution costs involved. Any person with an Internet connection and a microphone can create one.

When iTunes burst onto the music scene, podcasts piggybacked on its success, taking advantage of the programs’ user-friendly browsing and listener-generated ratings system. Add to this the fact that an individual podcast can theoretically exist on the Internet forever, and you had all the makings of a media revolution. Thousands of podcasts now exist, covering topics that range from philosophy to Marie Dubuque’s Easy Peasy Gardening.

Carlin’s success as a podcaster is an illustration of the profitability of what, for all its advantages, remains largely a niche media product. “On the radio, 10,000 people in the area might be able to hear me,” he explains. “I’ll probably only appeal to about 2% of them. On the Internet, I’ll still capture that same core percentage, but of a much larger pie: everyone in the world.”

Podcasts have also brought back an age-old dream of amateur content that began with the advent of radio.

In its earliest days, radio was flooded with amateur broadcasters who conducted many groundbreaking experiments, often out of their own homes. In his book, Radio and Television Regulation, historian Hugh Richard Slotten says, “amateurs tended to view the spectrum as a new, wide-open frontier, akin to the American West, where men could pursue individual interests free from repressive authoritarian and hierarchical institutions.” He points out that in 1912 the New York Times estimated that there were several hundred thousand amateur stations in existence.

That same year the government passed the Radio Act of 1912, which required all broadcasters to obtain licenses. This was the beginning of a series of regulations that would eventually consolidate broadcast ownership in the hands of a powerful few for most of the 20th century.

It remains to be seen whether podcasting will meet a similar fate. For now, amateurs – and professionals – have found a new frontier.

Carlin hasn’t regretted his move from radio one bit. “It’s the best job I’ve ever had,” he says. “Being in traditional media is horribly overrated, especially from a creative standpoint. In radio, for instance, your boss is the program director. He’d always be telling you what to do. But these people are the ones who failed at the same job you’re doing. It makes no sense. Now, nobody tells me what to do, and I’ve never been more proud of my work.”

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Health Insurance: Not Like Car Insurance

Inquiry:

In an interview with NPR’s All Things Considered this afternoon, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) talked up his committee’s proposals for health care reform. Although Hoyer spoke of retaining choice for Americans, host Robert Seigel pointed out that under the proposed plan people would effectively be penalized for not having insurance, because it included a 2.5% tax.

In response, Hoyer said, “Everybody needs to have health insurance, sort of like everybody needs to have automobile insurance. The reason for that is that we know accidents are inevitable, and we know as well that illness is inevitable.”

Whether one believes in mandatory health insurance or not, Hoyer’s analogy is poorly constructed.

First of all, inevitability has never been a precedent that lawmakers have applied uniformly. Death is more inevitable than sickness and much more likely than being in a car accident. Everyone dies. But no one would force you to buy life insurance.

Despite sharing a moniker, health insurance doesn’t resemble other types of insurance in other important ways. Most forms of insurance are meant to protect against some kind of unexpected catastrophe, such as a flood or fire. Some aspects of health insurance address the same kind of event, but the bulk of a health plan pays for what, in other realms, would be called maintenance. Annual checkups are not akin to car accidents; they are more like tune-ups. Your tire rotations aren’t paid for by Progressive. You don’t call AllState when your toilet backs up. You call a plumber.

If you decide not to call a plumber, though, the only person who suffers is you. The same is true if you ignore your health. This illustrates yet another area where Hoyer’s reasoning falls apart. Not every type of automobile insurance is mandatory. The only coverage mandated by the state is liability. Why? Because in an accident that involves two people, the responsible party needs to be able to repair the damage they’ve caused to someone else.

This distinction is vital. If you drive into a tree, it’s your problem. If your car gets broken into, it doesn’t affect anyone else. These kinds of insurance are not mandated precisely because personal risk is a personal (not social) responsibility.

Finally, automobile insurance is at the most basic level a voluntary “opt-in” cost. That is, you can avoid participating in insurance simply by not driving. Plenty of people do this. But you can’t live without your body. This makes compulsory health insurance an inescapable ultimatum that amounts to a tax on being alive. It takes away your freedom to not participate.

When then-candidate Obama unveiled his ideas for health care reform during the elections, he made a lot of noise about avoiding any kind of mandatory system. This won more support from self-identified Democratic voters during the primaries than Hillary Clinton’s plan, which included coercive structures. Siegel mentioned this to Hoyer during their discussion. Hoyer dismissed him by pointing out that Obama recognized the need to compromise. But it wouldn’t be Obama who would be compromised here – it would be the voters.

Health care does need reform. A nationalized system may be the best way to accomplish this. But there are better methods available to us than ones that rest on false analogies.