sleepcamel.net : brad weikel

For my Intro to CCT midterm last semester, I wrote a paper titled "Podcasting and the Public Interest: Children's Programming on the Internet," which was a very feable attempt to discuss podcasting in terms of the historical debate over broadcast television and the public interest. It was possibly the worst paper I've ever written, so I wasn't horribly surprised that I was asked to rewrite it.

My second version, retitled "A Vast and Portable Wasteland: An Exploration of Children's Podcasts," was much better, and is actually a decent paper overall. It's not as polished as it ought to be, and it would need to be rewritten to work outside of the context of the class (I used a little too much 505 jargon, and assumed a certain type of reader), but the argument is fairly strong and well developed.

The key to the rewrite was to shift the focus towards a direct comparison of children's broadcasting and children's podcasting, in terms of their modes of production, distribution, and consumption. I still used the public interest debate over television as a framework for my discussion, but I didn't try to directly apply that debate to podcasting, because that doesn't make sense: podcasts don't rely on public resources--at least not in the same sense as broadcasts--so the public interest question doesn't really apply.

Instead, I raised various themes of the public interest debate, but not the debate itself. So, for instance, I discussed parental control issues, not in terms of the 1st ammendment issues, but in terms of a comparison of the particulars of each technology's parental control options. I discussed the distribution models of podcasting and broadcasting but, rather than focusing on the basis for federal regulation, I emphasized the influence of the distribution models on the production cycle.

The biggest weakness of my paper is that, because I was rewriting it during finals week, I was more interested in trying to rework my first draft just enough to turn it back in, when I should have been completely starting over. Were I writing this paper again, I would probably abandon the public interest issues altogether, and just focus on the technologies and distribution models. For instance, podcasting -- like many other Web 2.0 type phenomena -- turns out to be a fantastic example of the power of decentralized production and distribution models, which allow for a diversity of programming that is completely unparalleled on television, even on cable, and also open the door to a diversity of modes of consumption.

One of the more minor points in my paper turns out to be the one I find most interesting, in this regard. The various parental control models that might emerge, concerning podcasts and portable digital media, are pretty damn powerful and exciting. For instance, a third party group might develop some sort of podcast portal (or application) that includes a wealth of qualitative information about each podcast (such as educational value, violent content, etc). This would not be determined by the producers, or by a governmental group, but through a community of voters. The voters might be other parents, or a local teachers union, or a select group of national reviewers. There are countless models that might be used, and which would allow parents a great deal of control without raising any of the 1st ammendment issues that come up with federal regulation and ratings.

On a side note, I think that portable media is an exciting way for parents to encourage learning. The most obvious example is by giving children educational podcasts on their players, but that's just the beginning... in the long run, we might see any number of content locking schemes that encourage learning. For instance, an iPod might have a math lock, which forces children to answer several math questions everytime they want to access the iPod menu. Or they might be allowed to listen to educational material at any time, and unlock their music by answering multiple choice questions about the educational material.

These are just examples... there are undoubtable many other, much better, models for how these might be done, but the point is that an iPod can be used as an educational incentive, something that encourages learning and fosters a positive outlook on learning.

Kind of like my silly idea for a TV powered by an exercise bike, which would insentivize exercise. Maybe I should invent this.