RJ-ISBAM 14 (1) pp.

7–22 Intellect Limited 2016

The Radio Journal – International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media

Volume 14 Number 1
© 2016 Intellect Ltd Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/rjao.14.1.7_1

Richard Berry
University of Sunderland

Podcasting: Considering the

evolution of the medium and
its association with the word
‘radio’

Abstract Keywords
When evaluating any new medium or technology we often turn to the familiar radio-studies
as a point of reference. Podcasting was no different, drawing obvious comparisons podcasting
with radio. While there are traits within all podcasts that are radiogenic, one must podcast listening
also consider whether such distinctions are beneficial to the medium. Indeed, one podcast listeners
might argue that when one considers the manner in which podcasts are created and podcast-studies
consumed then there is an increasing sense in which podcasting can present itself as radio
a distinct medium. While it is true to suggest that as an adaptable medium radio
has simply evolved and podcasting is its latest iteration. In doing so, we might fail
to appreciate the unique values that exist. In this article, I suggest that by consider-
ing podcasts on their terms we might begin to uncover new truths about a medium
in change.

After more than ten years of podcasting scholarship, histories and contexts
are well documented, with articles such as those by Bonini (2015), Menduni
(2007) and Berry (2006). However, we should consider how we began to frame
podcasting as a subject of scrutiny. The first public usage of the word   ‘Podcasting’

7
Richard Berry

came from a hastily created portmanteau word by a Guardian journalist in the

early 2004. Ben Hammersley was reporting on ‘a new boom in amateur radio’
(2004). He suggested that this new form was ‘Liberating the listeners from
time and place, and allowing them to talk back to the programme-makers’
(2004). What is interesting from both the report and those Hammersley spoke
to is that they all still called what they did ‘radio’ but he added that ‘While
these downloads are all in the traditional radio style, the low cost of produc-
ing audio for the internet means more interesting stuff can be done’ (2004).
This distinction presented then, as now, some thorny questions of whether
or not podcasting is radio and whether those who make podcasts are part of
the radio family. In this article I propose that we begin a discussion around
how we might consider podcasting on its own terms, focusing on its inherent
differences, and how we might frame this ‘interesting stuff’.
Radio is an evolutionary animal, one which has adapted to the world
around it. As technologies and consumption patterns change, radio has proven
that it can adapt. In this context, it would seem fair and logical to consider
podcasting as an extension of radio. Indeed, previous podcasting articles such
as Berry (2006) and Menduni (2007) made close reference to the links between
podcasting and radio and considered whether podcasting presented itself as a
threat to or an opportunity for radio, concluding that while radio would prove
resistant to the threats posed by this new upstart, although ‘radio may require
some retuning’ (Berry 2006: 159). Menduni also considered it as a stage in
the technological evolution of radio, perhaps even that missing link between
the mobility offered by radio and the global reach and range of web radio.
Both these early articles concluded that podcasting in its earliest iteration was
presenting itself as an interim technology, ‘one of a number of possible ways
for radio to face a complex digital future’ (Menduni 2007: 16).
The transformative impact of digital practices in radio has raised many
questions about the nature of the medium as a purely auditory medium,
questioning whether radio is ‘a medium that is defined purely by its mode
of delivery – radio waves – or is it something more nuanced than that’ (Berry
2013: 180). This is an argument shared by others, including Lacey (2008), Shaw
(2010) and Dubber (2013). Radio, Dubber argues, is complex and multifaceted,
where the term could mean institutions, practices a means of transmission
or a physical object (2013: 13). We can locate podcasting in this paradigmatic
debate, as it might share practices and institutions with radio, it also presents
itself as a collection of practices, cultures, institutions and distribution systems.
Podcasting sounds like radio while at the same time laying stake to its own
sense of uniqueness, which might contradict traditionally held concepts of
what ‘radio’ is, while often remaining a function of the radio industry. We
can probably reach broad agreement on what ‘radio’ is, as while formats
change, the inherent ‘radio-ness’ of the thing remains consistent through time.
However, as Edmund notes, contemporary radio is ‘experimenting with ever
more complex cross-media practices’ (2014: 2) where websites, video and social
media are all part of the output of many radio stations. In this setting social
media practices (Bonini 2012), video and visuals (Berry: 2014) and mobile
apps (Morris and Patterson 2015) further complicate these earlier definitions
and suggest that radio is increasingly a selection of multifaceted interactive
practices (Cordeiro 2012). The most talked about podcast of the recent time,
Serial (2014–) can be located within this paradigmatic shift, as although it was
radiogenic in nature and created by radio producers employed by a radio busi-
ness, it was not intended for radio broadcast (Berry: 2015). While Serial did

8
 Podcasting

deploy extensive radiogenic techniques, it also recognized that the space it

occupied is different, being one that allowed the producers to tell the story in
their own way rather than in the highly structured form demanded by linear
broadcasting (Chisholm 2015). Primarily, the podcast form meant that there
was more freedom for profanity and no longer a need to be constrained by a
linear broadcast ‘slot’; but more significantly it allowed for listeners to engage
with the narrative in a more attentive manner.
There are further delineations between linear radio and podcasting, as
the work of Sterne et al. (2008) suggests that while podcasts might ‘broadcast’
in a general sense, there is much about it that is oppositional to traditional
notions of broadcasting. The authors conclude that ‘Podcasting is not an alter-
native to broadcasting, but a realisation of broadcasting that ought to exist
alongside and compete with other models’ (2008). This is perhaps a reflection
of the platform-ness of podcasting, in that it is highly capable of distributing
programme content efficiently to anyone willing to receive those messages.
It may also do so with far greater efficiency and less state interference than
broadcast systems. There is no suggestion in this article that podcasting will
replace broadcasting, but that it presents itself as a parallel (largely unme-
diated) path for distribution where some content might shift between the
two. A radio programme can be both a broadcast artefact and a podcast, and
while the manner in which a listener might consume them can differ, they
are essentially the same text. Podcasts can be radio, made by radio stations
or by former radio professionals. Other podcasts can be created by individu-
als with no experience of the above, or any interest in sounding like radio,
and although they might sound different, they share listening and distributive
practices. Therefore, one might be able to prise radio and podcasting apart,
as related but increasingly divergent forms. Podcasts might arise from radio
stations and be located within radio practice, but at the same time also work
might deploy approaches that are counter to many contemporary professional
practices of broadcasting and of our own radio pedagogies.
In her study of independent podcasters, Kris Markman found that a desire
to ‘do radio’ was the most frequently cited reason for starting to podcast’ (2012:
555). This suggests that radio maintains an intrinsic appeal but podcasting has
specific appeal because it allows participants ‘to do radio on their own terms –
free from industry and/or legal restrictions’ (Markman 2014). Perhaps then,
these podcasters are more interested in broadcasting rather than radio as a
cultural practice. Although community radio may offer some opportunities for
these aspiring communicators, the fully disintermediated nature of podcast-
ing offers an even greater degree of freedom as it is both free of all regula-
tory control and management interference, and grants the ability to perform
on one’s own schedule. The discussion here is that while we can consider
podcasting to be part of radio, or to be a radio practice, it could actually be
unhelpful to label it as radio as doing so engenders a perception in the minds
of producers and listeners based on their previous experience of radio formats.
Black suggests listeners have a lot to do with it (2001: 398), but if we consider
that many listeners might come to podcasting because it is not radio, a distinct
identity could prove to be advantageous. These are thoughts outlined by
podcaster and academic Adam Ragusea (2015) who notes that while the lines
between the two mediums are fluid, they do need responding to. The ‘radio’
label might help the uninitiated, but it is not conducive to innovation and may
actually distract us from attempts to fully theorize and investigate the form of
podcasting on its own terms as it becomes more ingrained in our lives.

9
Richard Berry

Radio as a reference point

Radio academics have long appreciated the challenges of attempting to clearly
define radio, not least because the form(s) the medium has taken has evolved
over time. The arrival of television meant that the radio set was no longer
the object around which the family gathered, and by embracing music (rather
than talk) as its dominant form, radio was able to adapt to its new place in the
lives of listeners (Rothenbuhler and McCourt 2002). Radio is always subject to
change and some argue it has rarely been fixed (Moscote Freire 2007), as new
technologies and trends pose fresh challenges to our attempts to analyse a
medium under change. It is this willingness to adapt, as Hilmes and Loviglio
(2013) suggest, that has helped radio to thrive, rather than flounder, in the
digital age, even if it may have complicated the narrative around what was
‘previously less-problematically termed radio’ (Moscote Freire 2007: 99). Other
scholars have also considered the impact of the Internet on radio, notably
David Black (2001), Kate Lacey (2008) and Jo Tacchi (2000). In each case, the
authors attempted to extract the ‘radioness’ from audio heard online, with
Black suggesting that the distinction actually lies in the heads of the listeners.
In her call for a greater debate, Tacchi argued that ‘radio is what history says it
is: it has no essence since it has already taken, and continues to take, different
forms. Radio is what it is at a given time, in a given context of use and mean-
ingfulness’ (2000: 292). For all of these authors, the movement of radio onto
the Internet prompted questions for research, which have been discussed but
in the case of podcasting have not yet been fully resolved. Kate Lacey suggests
that ‘invoking the name of radio efficiently cuts through a swathe of possibili-
ties to register a set of expectations and practices’ (2008: 24). Perhaps, then,
we are using the term radio as a shorthand for audio, or as a set of features
by which to judge new audio products (Moscote Freire 2007) or for new prod-
ucts wishing to explain themselves to a confused consumer. If this is the case,
then invoking the name radio when considering a podcast might be both
useful and problematic, as it may both instil a set of expectations and suggest
a set of practices that are unconducive to the space. In this lies our problem.
It is not a problem about fixing what radio is but is about offering a frame-
work to consider what podcasting is (or might be) as a distinct form. Jonathan
Sterne and his co-authors of a 2008 article suggest that podcasting falls within
a wider debate around broadcasting, one where the notions around what is
‘broadcasting’ is set by corporate interests. The same could be said for online
radio, with streaming music services laying claim on the word ‘radio’. This is
contested ground where scholars, listeners and audience researchers have so
far failed to reach universal agreement.
From a purely technological perspective, we can easily recognize radio as
an auditory medium that requires the use of a transmitter and a receiver to
distribute a linear stream of content that is heard synchronously by listen-
ers in a specific area. When radio stations began to digitally stream live
programmes, the experience remained synchronous, albeit over a much
wider area and through a different device. This remains ostensibly the radio
with which we were historically familiar with, with breaks for news and an
unstoppable linear flow of programming. However, when this experience
becomes delayed or extends into visual and social forms, some challenges
do emerge. In their consideration of podcasting in the age of the smart-
phone, Morris and Patterson suggest that ‘Podcasting is neither limited to nor
defined by its technologies. Rather, it is a set of specific practices and cultural

10
 Podcasting

meanings that are entirely entwined with the technologies for its distribution,
organization, and consumption’ (2015: 221–22). So, while the means of distri-
bution alone might not be sufficient grounds for podcasting to be interrogated
as a distinct form, when we also factor in different production approaches,
distribution and listening patterns we start to build a thesis that podcasting is
capable of being considered as a distinct form. It is precisely these practices,
meanings and consumption patterns that this article suggests as the basis for
extracting the podcastness out of radio.
Podcasts are, like radio, an auditory experience. Like radio, we might listen
to them alone while doing other things, and like radio, they feature presenters,
music, stories and topics that might appeal to a range of listeners. Although in
the case of podcasting the content is increasingly niche and so bears a closer
resemblance to participatory media, with independent podcasters ‘contrib-
uting to the long tail of online media content’ (Markman: 2012: 550) rather
than replicating commercial or public formats. Many podcasts were originally
created as radio and are distributed as podcasts to offer additional opportu-
nities for audiences to engage with content on their own terms and sched-
ule (Murray 2009). This remediation of content certainly does not remove
the ‘radioness’ from them, as they are undoubtedly programmes created for
radio, for which the podcast is merely an extension or another route to the
ears of potential listeners. In his discussion on podcasting, Hugh Chignell
recognizes that while podcasts may not be seen as radio by purists, a previ-
ously lost generation of listeners to speech radio might be attracted to the
medium. There is some truth to this, with the producers of This American Life
(1995–) noting that their podcasts were attracting not only younger listen-
ers but also those with schedules that made appointment listening difficult
(Berry 2016). These are examples of podcasts created as radio or as part of a
wider radio experience where the title of ‘radio’ remains appropriate. Kate
Lacey notes that even this term is the subject of debate among radio schol-
ars, and draws on the work of Alan Beck in suggesting only texts that are
‘ideally suited to radio, or that display an optimum aesthetic use of sound’
(2013: 93) are radiogenic in nature. This may help us when extracting the
radioness out of podcasts. If we are to use Beck’s definition of radioness as a
benchmark for defining the medium, then there are podcasts that would be
well-suited to radio, not least because many were made for radio in the first
place. However, many would be wholly unsuited to broadcast environments
due to a number of factors (such as language or recording quality) and so
in this definition they are not radio. In his discussion on radio in the digital
age, Andrew Dubber (2013: 58) suggests that considering podcasts such as
Sodajerker on Songwriting (2015–) as radio in any meaningful sense is complex
and contestable.

Podcast listeners are different

While both the podcast listener and the radio listener are seeking aural enter-
tainment and while there may be occasions where both listeners consume the
same content, they may do so in different ways and for different reasons. For
the radio listener to experience ‘radio’, they only need to approach their radio
set and turn it on. They are then presented with whatever programme the
station they are tuned to is broadcasting. Like a light bulb, it is either on or
off. Of course, it may be re-tuned to another programme but again the linear-
ity of radio means that the listener can only join the programme at the point

11
Richard Berry

at which they tune in. One could argue that it is this serendipitous simplicity
that has enabled radio to endure and thrive for almost a 100 years; it is a low-
demand medium that merely requires the listeners to turn it on and listen. The
podcast listener has a different journey, one that starts with making a series
of choices over what they want to hear, often before that piece of audio has
been produced and certainly before they begin to hear it. This places podcast-
ing as a ‘pull’ medium, one where the listener is more active in the process of
selection and scheduling (Murray 2009; McClung and Johnson 2010), where
there may also be an emotional investment in the process. While new inter-
mediaries such as iTunes, Pocketcasts, Acast and other apps are increasingly
curating and mediating this process (Morris and Patterson 2015), this is a
process where the listener has a greater degree of autonomy. Making choices
about which specific podcasts to listen to, and also when and where suggests
that the podcast listener is a more actively engaged participant than the radio
listener. Research by Winocur notes that radio listeners rarely sit down to listen
to the radio, preferring instead to float between domestic tasks, which she
refers to as a ‘distracted way of relating to the radio’ (2005: 323). For the radio
listener, the sounds offered by the radio are often intended as aural wallpaper
to set a mood or provide accompaniment to routine tasks. It is the device that
wakes us up and provides structure to the day; as Winocur suggests, ‘it has
been incorporated into the complexity of symbolic and cultural frameworks
that structure domestic life’ (2005: 330). The fixed schedule of linear broadcast-
ing provides that structure, one which listeners fit around and use to create
routines.
The podcast listener, however, is not constrained by such fixed-point line-
arity. While they might choose to create a listening schedule (e.g., listening
to a specific podcast on a morning commute) they are not required to do so.
Although the listeners of Serial did come together physically and virtually to
listen collectively to new episodes, this is most definitely not a common occur-
rence. While a listener might typically listen to a podcast on the morning after it
is posted, it is an experience that can be easily deferred, paused or abandoned.
Indeed, they may choose to select a time to listen when they are least likely
to be distracted, should the podcast warrant close attention. Research from
ABC in Australia referenced by Quirk (2015) suggests that listeners are highly
engaged with the content from beginning to end, and a survey conducted by
Serial among its listeners suggests that 93 per cent of them always gave the
podcast their ‘full attention’ (PR Newswire). This suggests that podcast listen-
ers are not only less distracted but also potentially more engaged in the expe-
rience. In his research with urban listeners, Lars Nyre notes that ‘While live
radio comes from the public to you as a listener, podcasting is described in
quite different terms. It is self-selected in the extreme, and the engagement
starts on the inside, from the listener’s interests, and grows outward’ (2015:
294). Interestingly, this study asked participants to listen to music playlists,
live radio and podcasts while walking and commuting through London and
suggests that in some cases the content (The In Our Time podcast from BBC
Radio 4) (1998–) did not suit the context, as it was one that required their full
attention.
This suggests that while listeners may self-curate both music and podcasts,
there are different modes of consumption: one where attention can be pulled
away from the listening experience and one where doing so requires rewind-
ing to keep track of the subject matter (Nyre 2015: 295). While the particularly
didactic nature of In Our Time is plainly a factor in these findings, the need

12
 Podcasting

for such close listening is not unusual in podcasting. The highly successful
podcast Radiolab makes a virtue of its highly produced and crafted approach
to programme-making, of which Walker says,

radio drifts by or washes over you when it comes out of a box on the
other side of the room – but remember, a majority of ‘Radiolab’ listen-
ers actually take in the show via podcast, and there’s something differ-
ent going on when it enters your head through earbuds at the exact
moment you have chosen to hear it, while you’re commuting with noth-
ing else to think about, or cleaning the kitchen, or lying down for the
night.
(2011)

One could argue that while there may be occasions when a listener turns to
the radio for focused listening – such as a drama or a football match – radio is
largely an inattentive medium, one that understands that listeners multitask.
It could be that a combination of the dominance of speech in podcasting and
nature of the medium as self-selected experience based on niche experiences
almost demands that podcast listening is both theoretically and actually differ-
ent from radio listening, especially music radio. Mia Lindgren furthers this
and suggests that, as a platform, podcasting is highly advantageous for crea-
tive producers as work ‘can be sought out, returned to, listened to more than
once’ (2014: 75), which may motivate producers to develop more nuanced and
crafted productions.
While a podcast listener might stream content via Bluetooth to loudspeak-
ers or their car stereo from a mobile phone, it is likely that more often than
not they are using headphones: audience research from RAJAR in the United
Kingdom notes that 57 per cent (2016) of podcast consumption is via a smart-
phone, and at least 90 per cent (2015) of listening alone might support this
notion. This creates a deeply personal and highly privatized (and intimate)
space in which content is consumed, which seems to provide a reasonable
hypothesis that podcasting is a more intimate form of audio production. While
a radio listener may be confined to a ‘least-worst option’ choice of listening,
the long tail of podcasts enables podcast listeners to find something that more
closely represents their interests. Perhaps by combining a highly personal
listening environment with content that has immediate appeal to the listener
and is consumed at a time and place of their choosing, we have grounds to
consider that podcasts are capable of a deeper level of intimacy. It is a rela-
tionship that MacDougall suggests ‘may be part of an evolution in paraso-
cial phenomena and a fundamentally new form of mediated interpersonal
communication’ (2011: 716). It is a relationship that is complex, as Lacey notes
that digital devices that are carried through public and private spaces compli-
cate ‘the ideological distinctions drawn between active and passive, public
and private listening’ (2014: 49), thus placing as it does the privatized act of
listening to an ‘intimate soundscape of their own choosing’ (2014: 120) – into
public spaces such as the commuter train or the city street. This is reflected
in what Michael Bull has described as ‘mediated isolation’ (2007: 4), where
listeners remove themselves from the surrounding world. In this example,
Bull was primarily discussing the relationship with music, where listeners
escape into a musical world we might consider a slightly different form of
escapism with the podcast listener. As while plugging in a pair of earbuds
and listening to a podcast might disconnect the listener from their immediate

13
Richard Berry

surroundings, they are connecting to a different public, one of asynchronous

podcast listeners connected via a shared interest and social media. While the
podcast listener may feel connected to the experience, Chignell suggests that
the privatized form of listening proposed by Bull feels ‘profoundly unradio-
like’ (2009: 42), which further adds weight to the argument that podcasts are
something different to the radio we experienced during the twentieth century.
While podcasts such as Serial and The Message almost demand that audiences
listen from the start, podcast narratives are mostly sufficiently open-ended to
negate this need for all but the most ardent.
Podcasters recognize the different listening experiences in their deliv-
ery style. In this regard, we could consider that podcasts engender a sense
of hyper-intimacy, where listeners feel deeply engaged with both the proc-
ess of listening and the material to which they listen. Podcaster Roman Mars
notes of this relationship, ‘I love the closeness that people feel to me and to my
show … Podcast listeners are so, so dedicated … personal connection is major’
(in Steuer 2015). He also recognizes the nature of the experience, noting that

People typically listen to podcasts by themselves, often with earbuds. It’s

right there in their ears. It’s not playing over speakers at the bar. And
even more important, it’s totally the multitasking medium. We’re in a
world now where you have something to do at all times, and podcasts
are available for you all the time, on demand.
(Steuer 2015)

The British podcaster Helen Zaltzman has also noted that the relationship
between the podcaster and the podcast listener is highly intimate: ‘When
people are wearing headphones, you’re sort of talking right into their skull.
It’s not coming from a radio set on the far side of the room … It’s a very inti-
mate relationship’ (in Taylor 2015). It is a relationship that Sarah Koenig, the
producer and host of Serial, has suggested is far more intimate than the one
she had experienced in the traditional radio (The New School 2015). While
not all listening will be on headphones, and while radio can also be listened
to in this fashion via smartphone apps, there is a suggestion here that the
headphone-orientated approach taken by some podcasters is further grounds
for a claim of difference.
One should also consider (at least in the case of podcasts produced by
amateur producers) that many podcasts are produced in the homes of the
podcasters. Podcasts such WTF with Marc Maron (2009–) is famously produced
in his Los Angeles garage, therefore creating a double-ended domestication or
privatization of the experience where both the production and the consump-
tion are occurring in the private spaces of the homes or the headphone-wearing
commuter. In his study of the podcast, Meserko suggests that this situation
offers both Maron and his guests an opportunity to ‘reveal themselves in ways
previously unseen publicly’ (2015: 797) allowing the podcast (and the host) to
be presented as being more authentic. Early podcasts such as The Daily Source
Code (2004–2013) also made overt references to their domestic setting, often
pointing out the noises created by family members in adjoining rooms. While,
as Bonini (2015) notes, the medium is becoming increasingly professionalized
and therefore drawn into the more public space of a studio, for many podcast-
ers the home studio remains dominant. The engagement podcast listeners feel
also might prompt them to financially engage with the content they listen
to; in fact, Murtha suggests that ‘Podcasts breed intimacy through hosts who

14
 Podcasting

speak openly and directly to listeners, sharing their defeats along with their
victories … That intimacy leads to trust’ (2016).
Industry research (Webster 2015) seems to suggest that there is a cycle of
deeper engagement for podcast listeners, where the self-identified listeners
were not only listening to more podcasts (the average was six) but they were
spending more time with podcasts than any other audio medium, includ-
ing radio. This is perhaps not surprising given the exponential growth in the
number of podcasts and the ease with which a listener can subscribe to a
podcast, without cost or commitment. In addition, some highly engaged fans
are willing to make a financial commitment to their most favoured podcasts.
Since 2012, the San Francisco-based podcast 99% Invisible has proved to be
a leading proponent of this funding method, an approach that has seen it
become the highest funded journalistic project on the Kickstarter website on
more than one occasion (Popovich 2013). The creator of 99% Invisible (2010–),
Roman Mars, went on to develop the Radiotopia collective of podcasts and
again sought audience support, first raising $350,000 and then $620,000 the
following year (Fast Company 2015). This suggests that not only are podcast
listeners more engaged with the content but they are also highly likely to
support the sustainability of their favourite work financially. Other podcasts
such Welcome to Night Vale (2012–) and Richard Herring’s Leicester Square
Theatre Podcast (2012–) also take on listener-centred non-advertising funding
models, where listeners are able to support the podcast through live events
and merchandising.

Podcasts sound different from radio

As I outlined in the previous section, while some of the more popular podcasts
might be created in the kind of facility normally found in a radio station, many
are created in domestic settings. Indeed, it is the de-professionalization of the
production process that has proven to be podcasting’s biggest disruptive influ-
ence. Just as the tools for consumption were often reappropriated, the tools
of production were also borrowed from other processes. Inbuilt microphones
and pre-bundled software such as Garageband proved to be useful tools for
podcasters. Over time, these tools developed, and a simple search on retailer
sites such as Amazon or E-Bay will offer up a range of specialist equipment
and ‘how-to’ guides. While a radio broadcaster may spend heavily on studio
construction and equipment, a podcaster does not need to do so and may
often make a virtue of their domestically situated ‘studio’. Marc Maron makes
it clear that the celebrity interviews in his WTF podcast are recorded in his
home garage, and while good microphone selection and a quiet environment
can produce more than acceptable results, there can still be a sense of domes-
ticity in such recordings. While researchers such as Kris Markman have consid-
ered the motivations of podcasters (in 2012) and with Sawyer (2014), there
is little research into how podcasters actually produce work. In The Long Tail
(C. Anderson, 2006) of podcasters described by Markman and Sawyer (2014:
24), some podcasts have been created using equipment that would not look
out of place in radio stations while some most definitely have not. While such
sonic signatures might also appear in pirate and community radio, the lo-fi
nature of podcasting can present us with another line of enquiry.
Podcasts such The Bugle (2007–) and the successful Ricky Gervais Show
(2005–2014) also take on little or no structure. While they may adopt recur-
ring features, unlike broadcast radio they are not constrained by the clock

15
Richard Berry

where content must fit into regularly scheduled slots leaving space for news,
travel, commercials and other elements of scheduled ‘benchmarks’. While a
producer engaged to make a programme for BBC Radio 4 will know how long
their programme should be – often to the second – a podcaster has no such
pressure. To use the season one of the podcast Serial as an example, episodes
ranged from 28 minutes (Episode 3) to 56 minutes (Episode 12). This allowed
the producer to tell the story in the best possible way, rather than in a manner
dictated by an arbitrary clock or schedule. Although many radio programmes
appear as podcasts, it would be unusual for the reverse to occur – not least
due to the profane nature of many podcasts, but also due to issues of length,
subject matter and structure. A radio broadcaster is always aware that the
serendipitous nature of radio means that a listener might join and leave a live
radio programme at any point; the nature of podcasting means the radiogenic
practices used to alleviate this are largely meaningless. A podcast listener will
inevitably start at the beginning of the text, and while they might skip ahead,
pause the audio or abandon it all together, the more self-selected listening
nature that is inherent in podcasting means listeners are either absent or
present; as Ragusea highlights, ‘Nobody tunes into the middle of a podcast’
(2015). He also highlights a core difference in that podcasters can afford to
cater to smaller, more defined audiences, which the mass-market radio
stations fail to satisfy. The non-linearity of the podcast also means that while
some listeners may download and listen to a podcast soon after it has been
posted, following the podcasters schedule of episodes, many may not. Podcast
listeners, like Netflix viewers, might prefer to ‘stack’ episodes, delve into
archives, skip episodes or revisit favourites. This different behaviour was noted
by the streaming platform Stitcher, which noted in a December 2014 article on
Medium that ‘Six episodes in, 21 percent of Serial’s listening behavior matched
our definition of binge listening … Serial is proving that podcast listeners are
just as inclined to binge on episodic radio shows than on TV series’ (2014).
Although this obsessive listening pattern is enabled by podcasting, it may be
unusual as podcast narratives are mostly sufficiently open-ended to negate
this need for all but the most ardent, partly because podcasters do not have to
follow any consistent pattern of production.
In sound and form the podcast Welcome to Night Vale harks back to the
radio dramas of radio’s golden age, while simultaneously being contemporary
in approach; as Bottomley notes, ‘there is little about podcasting that is truly
new, when the full range of radio’s history and forms are taken into account’
(2015: 180). Bottomley further suggests that the intimacy of the podcast ‘is
hardly a new technique, even if it does seem novel compared to most of the
professionalized mainstream radio heard in the past few decades’ (2015: 186).
There is some logic here, as while podcasts such as Serial and Welcome to
Night Vale might sound like the radio of the past, they are in their own regard
points of innovation that have triggered revivals or sparked others to consider
podcasts as a form of expression or a source of entertainment, in what has
been described as the ‘Serial Effect’ – where there has been renewed interest in
podcasting and serialized storytelling. This suggests that while some podcasts
do not sound like contemporary radio, they do sound like the radio of the past,
and with that comes the challenges of adding what Richmond has described
as ‘noise’, noting ‘For all the vaunted variety of the Golden Age of podcast-
ing, the endless proliferation of options, essentially all shows fall into a few
predictable categories’ (2015). While listeners may appreciate such revivalist
approaches, there is a need for podcasting to further develop its own identity.

16
 Podcasting

Writing on the state of commercial podcasting in Spain, Pérez notes, ‘There is

a need to give this format further relevance and differentiate it from traditional
broadcasting’ (2012: 31). While podcasting may present some fundamental
differences, there is a sense that it is also an incremental step on a divergent
path that leads to a place where the inherent differences between radio and
podcasting are more greatly understood. There may even be a case to argue
that podcasting now occupies a space vacated by radio.
As a medium, podcasting crosses radio studies, academic pedagogies
(Huntsberger and Stavitsky 2007), politics (Chadha et al. 2012) and more. It
carries content for general entertainment and learning (Brabazon 2009). It is
a medium that is capable of being both radiogenic and non-radiogenic and is
both a commercialized space (Bonini 2012) and a more authentic and inde-
pendent media form (Meserko 2015) (Markman 2012). Just as radio convenes
a set of practices and experiences, podcasting has now established a similar,
but different, set of conventions and opportunities with an established canon
of scholarship.

Concluding thoughts
Podcasting is a hybrid of forms, it is both a platform and an identifiable collec-
tion of practices and characteristics. It is also a space that unlike broadcasting
or platforms such as YouTube is self-governed by participants, listeners and
intermediaries, and so is capable of being both mass market and incredibly
niche with all the inherent diversity that may be involved. The publication of
this themed issue of The Radio Journal is a clear recognition that podcasting
has become an established form of audio content, and while the word ‘radio’
remains a useful reference point, we have arrived at an interesting place in the
evolution of the medium. Podcasts are moving into the mainstream, presenting
us with both credible and popular content, and an emerging set of practices.
We are at a point in time that Tiziano Bonini (2015) refers to as the ‘Second
Age’ of podcasting, one where he suggests we reframe podcasting not as radio
but a new mass medium. Many aspects of radio studies still remain pertinent
to podcasts and other on-demand audio, but we must also be mindful of the
differentness that exists. Podcasting and radio are closely intertwined, shar-
ing technologies, techniques and content, but they are increasingly coexisting
on divergent and often intersecting paths. Podcasts can (but do not have to)
sound different to radio; podcast listeners can consume in different ways to
traditional radio listeners, and increasingly audio content is being produced
exclusively with this market in mind. While the delivery technologies will
change, and even the terminology may change, the practices will (I would
suggest) remain.
While the transformative abilities of radio remain pertinent, in this arti-
cle I have attempted to explore how the nature, the sound and the listening
experience of podcasting is different from that of linear radio, and so suggest
that the blanket term ‘radio’ might not be useful in the analysis (or the produc-
tion) of podcasts. There are parallels here to YouTube, of which Burgess and
Green note, ‘each scholarly approach to understanding how YouTube works
make choices … in effect recreating it as a different object each time’ (2009: 6).
In the same way, we should consider podcasting differently depending on
the lens through which we view it. For example, we could delineate between
content that sounds like radio (recorded in a studio, etc.) and that which most
definitely does not. We could be pragmatic and suggest that if the text under

17
Richard Berry

consideration has not been (and is not intended for) broadcast, then it is not
radio. We could also take a converged view and accept that all forms of audio
production are radio to some extent. We could scrutinize the content, or, also,
examine the listening patterns and use the artefact listened to as a defining
factor. Podcasting can sit inside or outside of radio as the mood fits. There
is no simple fix answer. You can cut the cake in whichever way you want to.
Also, in considering whether podcasting is radio, we must ask the question
who decided it was? Just as Sterne et al. (2008) suggest that broadcasting is a
cultural question, the same might be true of podcasting, with claims of radion-
ess pursued by those who wish to see it as an extension of their own corpo-
rate interests. It could be that we did so to explain the new or to draw on the
cultural status of radio. What is increasingly apparent is that radio is more
than the sum of its parts; it is an evolving collection of practices, and while the
traditional radio practices of production might remain largely static, there  is
a wider set of practices of radio stations that expand and diverge into other
formats and industries.
In common with YouTube, podcasting can perform both as a distributor
of commercial works and a source of disruptive innovation and alternative
participatory practice. Simultaneously, it is a platform, an object (the ‘podcast’
itself) and a collection of practices that can be both part of radio and part of
a wider ecology of digital participatory practices. It is also, as I have argued,
an audio form where the conventions and production processes present a
collection of texts that are sonically different and are treated differently from
radio – even if they still emerge from the same business. This is not suggest-
ing that a study of podcasting should no longer be part of radio studies; more
that there is an argument (reflected in this special issue) for the emergence
of a branch of podcast studies, one that might embrace parallel scholarship
within pedagogies and digital media. My suggestion here is that in order to
advance our scholarship on podcasting we should also consider it as some-
thing that is capable of being distinct from linear radio broadcasting and
then investigate it further on its own terms. By changing the lens, we may be
able to change the questions we ask and reach new conclusions about what
podcasting really is.

References
Anderson, C. (2006), The Long Tail, New York: Hyperion.
Berry, R. (2006), ‘Will the iPod kill the radio star? Profiling podcasting as radio’,
Convergence, 12: 2, pp. 143–62.
—— (2013), ‘Radio with pictures: Radio visualization in BBC national radio’,
Radio Journal: International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media, 11: 2,
pp. 169–84.
—— (2014), ‘The future of radio is the internet, not on the internet’, in M.
Oliveira, G. Stachyra and G. Starkey (eds), Radio: The Resilient Medium,
Sunderland: Centre for Research in Media and Cultural Studies, pp. 3–15.
—— (2015), ‘A golden age of podcasting? Evaluating Serial in the context of
podcast histories’, Journal of Radio and Audio Media, 22: 2, pp. 170–78.
—— (2016), ‘Part of the establishment: Reflecting on 10 years of podcasting
as an audio medium’, Convergence: The International Journal of Research into
New Media Technologies. [Online] doi: 10.1177/1354856516632105.
Black, D. (2001), ‘Internet radio: A case study in medium specificity’, Media,
Culture & Society, 23: 3, pp. 397–408.

18
 Podcasting

Bonini, T. (2012), ‘Doing radio in the age of Facebook’, in Oliveira and Santos
(eds), Radio Evolution: Conference Proceedings, ECREA/University of Minho,
pp. 17–26.
—— (2015), ‘The “Second Age” of podcasting: Reframing podcasting as a new
digital mass medium’, Quaderns del CAC, 41: 18, July, pp. 21–30.
Bottomley, A. (2015), ‘Podcasting, Welcome to Night Vale, and the revival of
radio drama’, Journal of Radio & Audio Media, 22: 2, pp. 179–89.
Brabazon, T. (2009), ‘Sounds like teen spirit. iTunes U, podcasting and a
sonic education’, International Studies in Communication and Culture, 1: 1,
pp. 71–91.
Bull, M. (2007), Sound Moves, London: Routledge.
Burgess, J. and Green, J. (2009), YouTube, Cambridge, England: Polity.
Chadha, M., Avila, A. and Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2012), ‘Listening in: Building a
profile of podcast users and analyzing their political participation’, Journal
of Information Technology & Politics, 9: 4, pp. 388–401.
Chignell, H. (2009), Key Concepts In Radio Studies, London: SAGE.
Chisholm, K. (2015), ‘Does the future of radio really lie in podcasts?’, The
Spectator, 28 March, http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/03/does-the-future-
of-radio-really-lie-in-podcasts/. Accessed 31 December 2015.
Cordeiro, P. (2012), ‘Radio becoming r@dio: Convergence, interactivity and
broadcasting trends in perspective’, Participations, 9: 2, pp. 492–510, http://
www.participations.org/Volume%209/Issue%202/27%20Cordeiro.pdf.
Accessed 10 January 2015.
Dubber, A. (2013), Radio in the Digital Age, Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Edmond, M. (2014), ‘All platforms considered: Contemporary radio and trans-
media engagement’, New Media & Society, 17: 9, pp. 1566–1582.
Fast Company (2015), ‘The world’s top 10 most innovative companies backed
by Kickstarter in 2015’, http://www.fastcompany.com/3041654/most-inno-
vative-companies-2015/the-worlds-top-10-most-innovative-companies-
of-2015-of-kickst. Accessed 30 December 2015.
Hammersley, B. (2004), ‘Audible revolution’, The Guardian, 12 February, http://
www.theguardian.com/media/2004/feb/12/broadcasting.digitalmedia.
Accessed 10 April 2014.
Hilmes, M. and Loviglio, J. (2013), ‘Making radio strange’, in M. Hilmes and J.
Loviglio (eds), Radio’s New Wave, London: Routledge, pp. 1–6.
Huntsberger, M. and Stavitsky, A. G. (2007), ‘The new “Podagogy”: Incorporat-
ing podcasting into journalism education’, http://digitalcommons.linfield.
edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=mscmfac_pubs. Accessed
22 January 2015.
Lacey, K. (2008), ‘Ten years of radio studies: The very idea’, Radio Journal:
International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media, 6: 1, pp. 21–32.
—— (2013), Listening Publics, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
—— (2014), ‘Smart radio and audio apps: The politics and paradoxes of
listening to (anti-) social media’, Australian Journalism Review, 36: 2,
pp. 77–90.
Lindgren, M. (2014), ‘“This Australian life”: The Americanisation of radio
storytelling in Australia’, Australian Journalism Review, 36: 2, pp. 63–75.
MacDougall, R. (2011), ‘Podcasting and political life’, American Behavioral
Scientist, 55: 6, pp. 714–32.
Markman, K. (2012), ‘Doing radio, making friends, and having fun: Exploring
the motivations of independent audio podcasters’, New Media and Society,
14: 4, pp. 547–65.

19
Richard Berry

Markman, K. and Sawyer, C. (2014), ‘Why pod? Further explorations of the

motivations for independent podcasting’, Journal of Radio & Audio Media,
21: 1, pp. 20–35.
McClung, S. and Johnson, K. (2010), ‘Examining the motives of podcast users’,
Journal of Radio & Audio Media, 17: 1, pp. 82–95.
Menduni, E. (2007), ‘Four steps in innovative radio broadcasting: From
QuickTime to podcasting’, The Radio Journal – International Studies in
Broadcast and Audio Media, 5: 1, pp. 9–18.
Meserko, V. (2015), ‘The pursuit of authenticity on Marc Maron’s WTF podcast’,
Continuum, 29: 6, pp. 796–810.
Morris, J. W. and Patterson, E. (2015), ‘Podcasting and its apps: Software,
sound, and the interfaces of digital audio’, Journal of Radio & Audio Media,
22: 2, pp. 220–30.
Moscote Freire, A. (2007), ‘Remediating radio: Audio streaming, music recom-
mendation and the discourse of radioness’, The Radio Journal – International
Studies in Broadcast and Audio Media, 5: 2–3, pp. 91–112.
Murray, S. (2009), ‘Servicing “self-scheduling consumers”: Public broad-
casters and audio podcasting’, Global Media and Communication, 5: 2,
pp. 197–219.
Murtha, J. (2016), ‘WNYC is leading public radio’s transition to public podcas-
ting’, Columbia Journalism Review, http://www.cjr.org/the_feature/wnyc_
public_radio_podcast.php. Accessed 14 January 2016.
Nyre, L. (2015), ‘Urban headphone listening and the situational fit of music,
radio and podcasting’, Journal of Radio & Audio Media, 22: 2, pp. 279–98.
Pérez, J. Ignacio Gallego (2012), ‘Podcasting in Spain: A new business model
or a reflection of traditional radio?’, Radio Journal: International Studies in
Broadcast & Audio Media, 10: 1, pp. 23–34.
Popovich, N. (2013), ‘Roman Mars: Public radio maverick’, The Guardian,
6 August, http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/aug/06/roman-mars-
99-percent-invisible-status-update. Accessed 30 December 2015.
Prnewswire.com (2015), ‘First survey of Serial’s listeners sheds light on the
Serial effect’, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/first-survey-
of-serials-listeners-sheds-light-on-the-serial-effect-300104734.html.
Accessed 31 December 2015.
Quirk, V. (2015), Guide to Podcasting, 7 December, http://towcenter.org/
research/guide-to-podcasting. Accessed 29 December 2015.
Ragusea, A. (2015), ‘Three ways podcasts and radio actually aren’t quite the
same’, Current.org, http://current.org/2015/07/three-ways-podcasts-and-
radio-actually-arent-quite-the-same/. Accessed 10 January 2016.
RAJAR (2015), ‘MIDAS – measurement of Internet delivered audio services
spring 2015’, http://www.rajar.co.uk/docs/news/MIDASSpring2015r.pdf.
Accessed 2 March 2016.
—— (2016), ‘MIDAS – measurement of Internet delivered audio services
autumn 2015’, http://www.rajar.co.uk/docs/news/MIDASSpring2015r.pdf.
Accessed 2 March 2016.
Richmond, J. (2015), ‘Noisecasting: The search for podcasting’s bleeding edge’,
10 February, The Timbre, http://thetimbre.com/noisecasting-search-pod-
castings-bleeding-edge/. Accessed 3 March 2016.
Rothenbuhler, E. and McCourt, T. (2002), ‘Radio redefines itself, 1947–1962’,
in M. Hilmes and J. Loviglio (eds), Radio Reader, London: Routledge,
pp. 367–87.

20
 Podcasting

Shaw, H. (2010), ‘The online transformation: How the internet is challenging

and changing radio’, in B. O’Neill, M. Ala-Fossi, P. Jauert, S. Lax, L. Nyre
and H. Shaw (eds), Digital Radio in Europe – Technologies, Industries and
Cultures, Bristol: Intellect, pp. 215–36.
Sterne, J., Morris, J., Brendan Baker, M. and Moscote Freire, A. (2008), ‘The poli-
tics of podcasting’, Fibreculture, Issue 13 (Article: FCJ–087), http://thirteen.
fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-087-the-politics-of-podcasting/. Accessed
December 2015.
Steuer, E. (2015), Roman Mars: The Man Who’s Building a Podcasting Empire,
London, WIRED, http://www.wired.com/2015/01/podcaster-roman-mars/.
Accessed 30 December 2015.
Stitcher (2014), ‘Binge Listening is the New Black: Looking at data to learn
about the success of “Serial”’, Medium, https://medium.com/@Stitcher/
binge-listening-is-the-new-black-d9fff5cca915#.8u6admftf. Accessed
10 December 2015.
Tacchi, J. (2000), ‘The need for radio theory in the digital age’, International
Journal of Cultural Studies, 3: 2, pp. 289–98.
—— (2009), ‘Radio and affective rhythm in the everyday’, Radio Journal:
International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media, 7: 2, pp. 171–83.
Taylor, D. (2015), ‘Helen Zaltzman interview: Art of podcasting at The Timbre’,
The Timbre, http://thetimbre.com/helen-zaltzman-art-podcasting-no-6/.
Accessed 30 December 2015.
The New School (2015), ‘Serial and the Podcast Explosion | Journalism+Design’,
video, 6 February, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM6M69v6u7o.
Accessed 14 January 2016.
Walker, R. (2011), ‘How “Radiolab” is transforming the airwaves’, Nytimes.
com, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/magazine/mag-10Radiolab-t.
html?_r=0. Accessed 29 December 2015.
Webster, T. (2015), Share of Ear™ Study Shows Dramatic Increase In Podcasting
Consumption, New Jersey: Edison Research, http://www.edisonresearch.
com/podcast-share-of-ear/. Accessed 29 December 2015.
Winocur, R. (2005), ‘Radio and everyday life: Uses and meanings in the domes-
tic sphere’, Television & New Media, 6: 3, pp. 319–32.

suggested citation
Berry, R. (2016), ‘Podcasting: Considering the evolution of the medium and its
association with the word “radio”’, The Radio Journal – International Studies
in Broadcast & Audio Media, 14: 1, pp. 7–22, doi: 10.1386/rajo.14.1.7_1

Contributor details
Richard Berry is a Senior Lecturer in Radio in the Faculty of Arts, Design and
Media at the University of Sunderland. He holds a Masters Degree in Radio
from Goldsmiths College, London, and is a fellow of the Higher Education
Academy. His research centres on the intersections between radio and new
technologies: how the Internet generates new opportunities for producers and
listeners and how these trends might change our understanding of what radio
is. He published one of the earliest academic articles on podcasting in 2006,
as well as publishing work on Digital Radio, Visualisation, Online Content and
the podcast Serial.

21
Richard Berry

Contact: Faculty of Arts, Design and Media, David Puttnam Media Centre, Sir
Tom Cowie Campus at St Peters, Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, SR6 0DD, UK.
E-mail: richard.berry@sunderland.ac.uk

Richard Berry has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work in the format that was
submitted to Intellect Ltd.

22