Podcasting represents a radical decentralization of the airwaves that can’t actually take place on the airwaves, for a few reasons.

Most people conceive of FM radio as being one giant mass of differently-formatted radio stations and content providers. In actuality, there are three tiers:

1. FM Commercial Radio Broadcast Stations
2. FM Noncommercial Educational Radio Broadcast Stations
3. Low Power FM (LPFM) Noncommercial Educational Radio Broadcast Stations

The first tier, commercial radio, is your average music, talk and sports programming; the FCC allows commercial radio to potentially take up every slot from 92.1 MHz to 107.9 MHz. The second tier is where “public radio” can be found, and the FCC generally allots 88.1 MHz to 91.9 MHz to public radio stations. This is the realm of NPR and its competitor-partners. The third tier, LPFM stations, are generally smaller community outfits that can cover neighborhoods with their broadcasting power, but little else. They have a smaller budget and don’t operate through NPR; they also tend to hire more amateur and independent producers on a volunteer basis. Due to the low transmission power, it’s rare that these producers can get their work heard by more than a few hundred people at any given moment.

Podcasting does for these producers what national syndication does for Talk of the Nation, Morning Edition and All Things Considered: it gets their work out there to potentially anyone. Of course, the latter shows aren’t exactly done by independent producers, which brings me to the second barrier to entry for radio decentralization: just about every production company operates in the realm of old media.

With one notable exception, the companies that operate and compete in public radio hire much in the same way that a newspaper or television station does; only producers that are credentialed (usually in the form of a college degree followed by so many years interning or working at low-power FM stations) can get even entry-level jobs at National Public Radio, Public Radio International, or American Public Media. This is not a good or bad thing – this is just something that they do. Unfortunately, there’s a side-effect: not everyone currently producing audio has a college degree, and not everyone who wants to be in radio can actually afford to go to college for it; therefore, the demographic of people who are actually working at one of the major content providers tends to be very… monochromatic.

That notable exception? The Public Radio Exchange, or PRX. Its slogan is “Making Public Radio More Public,” and its entire infrastructure is set up for exactly that task. Anyone can sign up as a producer for free, and the entry cost to actually make money with PRX is only $50 a year. Unfortunately, the free producer account has a data upload limit of two hours – not exactly conducive to doing a long-run podcast. Also, there are some technical barriers to using PRX as your main distribution tool – barriers that, if you’re not familiar with the inner workings of public radio, might be very difficult to overcome. Studioless podcasting comes with very few of those barriers; plus, it’s all-online.

This is really the crux of what makes podcasting special: its ability to open up new spaces for more voices in almost infinite capacity. You can podcast for fun or for a living; your success isn’t tied to which market you’re doing the best in and you don’t have to worry about broadcast clocks. You don’t have to worry about your show being canceled because the station lost money or didn’t raise enough in the periodic fundraiser to keep it going. Podcasting is made for everyone.

Pick Your Niche

Unlike public radio, or anything produced professionally, by the book, in a studio, podcasting is limitless in terms of both creativity and coverage. This is a double-edged sword, and it is the primary reason you need to take some time to think about what you want to say with your show. Interested in news and politics? As a quick glance at iTunes shows, so do 500 other producers. Narrow things down to a specific topic, and run with it – especially if you believe that topic isn’t covered well in the rest of the media.

KISS – Keep It Short and Simple

The very best advice I ever got was from a podcaster I interviewed, Abby Wendle. She told me that the best idea for a show was one you could implement in a few minutes, as that’s generally what radio stations look for. While I’m not so worried about radio stations, this concept applies to your listener as well. (Note: I said listener, singular, for a reason.) Your casual listener has an attention span that will feel stretched if you go longer on a topic, story or episode than five to ten minutes. Obviously, if you go over that time frame, no one is going to, like, sue you, but your listener might not stick around for the whole thing — at least, not when you just start out.

Learn to write like you speak

This is actually a professional technique. I didn’t learn that until recently, when I was flipping through Sound Reporting: The NPR Guide To Audio Journalism And Production while bored the other day. Here’s what Jonathan Kern, the author of that book, has to say:

First, and foremost, say your sentences before you write them down; or at the very least, say them out loud after you’ve written them. […] As you write, ask yourself: Would I ever say this sentence in my regular life, when I am not writing a news story? If the answer is no, change it. […] Remember, expressing your thoughts in short declarative sentences doesn’t require you to eliminate any of your ideas — just to ration them out. You aren’t sacrificing anything by writing less convoluted prose.

I’ve tried podcast writing a number of ways, including: reading from the Associated Press wire; writing whole essays on a topic, the way I would if I were still in school; going scriptless. None of them have worked nearly half as well as when I’m writing the entire episode of a show like I’d speak the show naturally, without any pauses in thought. If you do this alone, the quality of your podcast will improve regardless of what equipment you’re rocking.

Next week: the significance of studioless podcasting.

Questo è solo uno dei tanti esempi della crescente brutalità della polizia. Secondo USA Today, il comportamento della polizia è diventato sempre più violento dall’undici settembre, presumibilmente per colpa dell’abbassamento degli standard nelle scuole di polizia e di un addestramento insufficiente. Forse questo è parte del problema. Io però penso che la colpa sia della crescente mentalità da stato di polizia che si è diffusa da quando è iniziata l’infinita “guerra al terrorismo”. Considerata la militarizzazione crescente della polizia di questi ultimi dieci anni, non c’è da stupirsi se la violenza aumenta.

Ma perché cresce l’interesse del pubblico?

Anche molto prima dell’undici settembre la polizia era brutale e forniva grandi titoli ai giornali, ma non così spesso come oggi. L’interesse sempre maggiore da parte del pubblico si basa sul fatto che la violenza è in aumento? Correlazione non significa causa. Le nuove tecnologie, i media indipendenti e la vecchia buona capacità di comunicare degli uomini sono alle origini della questione. Noi siamo connessi, noi parliamo, noi controlliamo la piazza e noi diffondiamo le storie sul web. Di fronte al crescere della violenza la gente ricorre ai social media per diffondere la conoscenza e fronteggiare il potere dello stato.

Per stare in argomento: Sahar Khoshakhlagh, una delle donne sparate dalla polizia che tentava di sparare Broadnax, non beve la storia dell’uomo mentalmente instabile responsabile delle sue ferite. Secondo il suo avvocato, Mariann Wang, l’accusa dovrebbe essere spostata sugli agenti che hanno aperto il fuoco. “È un incredibilmente sfortunato uso della discrezione dell’accusa il fatto che venga accusato un uomo che non ha inferto alcuna ferita al mio cliente,” ha detto Wang. “È stata la polizia a ferire il mio cliente.”

Sono passati i tempi in cui le persone arroganti prese di mira dalla polizia erano persone che semplicemente se lo meritavano. “Si vede che ha combinato qualcosa,” è il vecchio mantra della maggioranza. Oggi noi sappiamo che gli agenti del governo sono dalla parte del torto e non esitiamo a sollevare polemiche riguardo il fatto. La tastiera è più potente degli editti di stato.

L’informatica ha connesso la popolazione come non era mai accaduto prima, ma non è la semplice esistenza della tecnologia che fa salire il dissenso di fronte agli abusi della polizia: è l’attività del pubblico e la volontà di contrastare il potere dello stato. È incredibile vedere queste piccole fiamme di libertà che spuntano non solo negli Stati Uniti, ma in tutto il mondo. Il pubblico sta mettendo in dubbio chi ha il potere e le sue ragioni. Gli individui (e la collettività) stanno acquisendo più potere che mai. Questo ha un grosso effetto sui sistemi politici; e sulla “giustizia”. Quando si arriverà ad un mondo basato sulla libertà anarchica la giustizia non sarà misurata con il metro del castigo, della forza e della violenza; si baserà invece sulla capacità di ristabilire l’ordine e sulla possibilità di disarmare chi opprime.

E allora: via le pietre degli “agenti del bene”, ben vengano le polemiche del pubblico.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

This is just one of many examples of the ongoing increase in police violence. USA Today reports police violence has been on the rise since 9/11, presumably due to dropping police academy standards and substandard training. This may be part of the issue. However, I think the culprit is the growing police state mentality since the never-ending “war on terror” began. With the growing trend of militarized police over the past decade, it is no wonder violence is escalating.

But why the increased interest from the public?

Police brutality existed long before 9/11 and made major news in the past, but not nearly as frequently as today. Is growing public interest based on the increasing trend of violence? Correlation is not causation. New technology, independent media and good old human communication are getting the job done. We are connected, we talk, we control the public arena and we make stories go viral. In the face of increased violence folks are taking to social media to spread news and directly confront state power.

Case in point: Sahar Khoshakhlagh, one of the women shot by police as their bullets zipped past Mr. Broadnax, is not buying that the mentally ill man is responsible for her injuries. Her lawyer, Mariann Wang, says that charges should be levied on the police officers who opened fire. “It’s an incredibly unfortunate use of prosecutorial discretion to be prosecuting a man who didn’t even injure my client,” Wang said. “It’s the police who injured my client.”

Gone are the days of assuming people targeted by police simply had it coming. “They must-a done something wrong” is the old mantra of the majority. Today we know government officials are in the wrong and we don’t hesitate to write polemics about the fact. The keyboard is mightier than the state issued piece.

Information technology has connected people like never before but it is not the mere existence of the technology that gives rise to dissent in the face of police abuse — it is public labor and willingness to stand up to state power. It is amazing to see the tiny flames of liberty popping up not just in the United States, but around the world. The public is questioning who wields power and for what reason. Individuals (and the collective) are becoming far more empowered than ever before. This has huge implications for political systems — including the “justice” system. When true anarchic liberty is realized justice will not be gauged by punishment, force and violence — justice will instead be based on its restorative capacity and disarm those who make oppression possible.

Down with hot rocks from the “peacekeepers,” up with polemics from the public.

Translations for this article:

• Italian, Pietre dagli Agenti del Bene, Polemiche dal Pubblico.