A “town crier” is an unfamiliar term in the world we live in today. A town crier was an individual tasked with the dissemination of information from authorities to the public. The extinction of the role came about as literacy rates increased and print media became the norm. Media continued to evolve, with radio emerging, followed by television. Each new medium seemingly threatened to wipe out the one before it. In the words of The Buggles: “Video killed the radio star.” Yet those words haven’t entirely held true- print, radio, and TV still exist today, their relevance largely dependent on internet access, which has become the latest and most profound threat to traditional media.
Then came digital media, more specifically, social media– a universe of complexity, filled with pros and cons. We gained access to insurmountable information, unconstrained by time or place. An unimaginable leap in the distribution of knowledge. The rise of content creation brought with it both empowerment and concern. Anyone can now pick up a phone and share information—true or false. Each advantage seems to carry its equal and opposite risk. Take, for instance, the ability to learn how to make red velvet cake in a 60-second reel versus leafing through endless pages in a recipe book. The rapid exchange of information is undoubtedly a benefit, but can we still hold attention long enough to engage in more layered, in-depth ideas?
That was, of course, until podcasting, the newest wave in the evolution of digital media. Podcasts have managed to retain attention, allowing for the translation of complex ideas in ways short-form content simply cannot. The art of conversation is experiencing a renaissance. Joe Rogan, for instance, holds over a million viewers for hours at a time. It’s not the person that’s new, it’s the medium.
Podcasting has closed a crucial gap in the “how do we do media today?” conversation. In a fast-paced landscape where attention is currency, how do we still tell stories that need to be mulled over, through narrative, theory, challenge, or debate? Important information often can’t be shared in bite-sized form. Traditional TV and radio talk shows attempted to fill this space but had constraints: the cost of production, the gatekeeping of voices, the strict time slots, and the exclusivity of those allowed to participate or control the conversation.
In the digital space, the possibilities have exploded. But as with everything digital, the drawbacks emerge just as quickly.
New podcasts pop up daily. The conditions for their existence differ from traditional media. While costs are lower, they are not non-existent. And unlike traditional media, there are no salaries, your earnings are directly tied to your ability to attract attention. So, what are creators willing to do to go viral?
This brings us to a hotly debated issue: the call for a regulatory board to manage disinformation and harmful speech on podcasts, even reaching the halls of the South African Parliament. Critics call it new-age censorship, a threat to free speech. Some argue that platforms like YouTube and Spotify already have content moderation tools. But do these platforms understand the cultural and political nuances of countries like South Africa? Or are they governed by algorithms designed around the values of the global North?
If so, perhaps we should begin by holding platforms accountable, encouraging regional adaptation, rather than immediately regulating creators. At the same time, we cannot ignore the real harm that unchecked content can cause. It’s a tightrope: freedom of speech vs. hate speech, inclusivity vs. dilution. So, what does it all really mean?
In a recent radio interview with DJ Sbu, I compared the rise of podcasts to an episode of Black Mirror– you never know what’s going to happen until it’s happened. We don’t know what direction this era will take. Will it progress humanity, or leave us scrambling for ways to contain the beast?
Grab your popcorn. It’s about to get interesting.
Ursula Mariani : Podcast : The Conversation Capital : Lifestyle and Tech