Podcasts are getting competitive and causing harm

Unlike traditional broadcasting and print media, podcasts have no regulatory body It’s election season and everybody has a hot take. Historically, most people with a hot take were limited in their ability to express it to a wide audience. Today, the internet will provide – and much more than you bargained for. In traditional broadcasting, one would have a coma-inducing panic attack if there were a couple of seconds of dead air. On the internet, one could get an audience of thousands painting their nails and saying nothing. It’s a weird place, this internet but it suffers the same overarching limitation of traditional broadcasting – there is a finite number in the audience that everybody is competing for. Podcast space getting competitive Enter the podcasting Achilles heel. It’s much cheaper to start a podcast and the audience can be less demanding. It’s no surprise then that the number of podcasts continues to rise. What about the audience though? For now, new people are being introduced to podcasts but, at some point, that limit of time and people will be reached and then what? Even now, podcasts have to compete for audience share and what happens when they do something stupid to get that increase? Just watch what ridiculousness comes out of the mouths of some podcasters over election seasons. Some will insist on something benign – ban pickles from burgers. Could be a fun conversation. Others may insist on something stupid – put Jacob Zuma in charge of gender equality. Still, just conversation. Where it will become problematic is that there’s incentive to sensationalise, embellish and tell scandalous stories even if they’re untrue. No regulation for podcasts To some, that’s a problem. To others, it’s freedom of expression… except that’s not exactly how freedom of expression works. Sure, you’re entitled to speak your mind but nothing in the constitution says that it will be without consequence. In traditional broadcasting, there’s the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa(BCCSA). In print media, there’s the Press Council. Even advertising has its own regulatory body. But the podcasters, no. It doesn’t mean that they are above the law. They’re still subjected to the same laws we all fall under but there’s a reason the public is protected by institutions like the BCCSA, Press Council and Advertising Regulatory Board – getting love from the court takes time and is expensive and cumbersome. Getting love from an industry regulator is not only specialised for that industry but also aligns the industry with a particular code of conduct – one that is agreed by the industry players and can limit tensions with audiences. If enough podcasts go rogue and there’s no industry protective mechanism in place, audiences can opt out of the medium entirely. If, however, there is a code that creates a degree of accountability that podcasters can voluntarily adopt, there may exist space for audiences to feel safe by having the content they consume subject to a code. Freedom of speech? When podcasting started in South Africa, it was wild and the narrative was this isn’t radio – I can say whatever I want. That was never true yet it went unchallenged. Nobody can say whatever they want and get away with it. It’s unlawful no matter what the platform. Yes, there were some restrictions that radio and TV had which were unnecessary to migrate to the digital forum but restrictions still exist. Let’s talk after the election again and count the number of times something was said on a podcast that had it been said on TV, you’d report it. Then let’s have a serious conversation about the state of podcasting in South Africa. We have some excellent shows on the net. Too bad they share platforms with some awful ones. I would make a snide remark about how given enough incentive, one can push boundaries. Sometimes pushing boundaries is great and in those instances, frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn. Other times, pushing boundaries adds no value and just causes harm. It’s those boundaries that we need to protect.