not quite the same as creating an original podcast

How dare you! I produced that Kennedy Podcast and had deluded myself in to thinking I was the father of UK political podcasting ;)

I think there is a very good point here about content - I have first hand experience of the difficulties of getting an MP to Podcast… recently I sat one down and tried to explain that I wanted to record something for ‘broadcast’ or ‘download’ on the Internet. I think he was with me as far as “I wanted to record…”

My experience has been that MPs with no spokespersonship in their party generally aren’t interested in Podcasting if it’s going to reach more people outside of their constituency than inside, so you have to back it up with press releases, presence on campaign literature etc…

…and only then can you start worrying about the fact that the vast majority of constituents still see “Podcast” and think “PodWHAT? Next!”

“MPs need to stop their one-way conversations with the public and use podcasts to shake things up.”

I think the counter-argument to this is very succinct: Four words in fact:

Oh no they shouldn’t.

The idea that individual politicians are going to compete with existing or emerging audio channels really doesn’t bear thinking about.

Politicans are a bit like Vicars in this respect: The more trendy they try to become, the more irrelevant they seem. They should stick to their guns and portray themselves as people with a concience, they should be able to convince the public that they have a sophisticated awareness of what their constituents interests are, and they should be able to explain how their party works, and how they represent that party. They can only do this by interacting with people. Podcasting gives them another one-way medium, and I doubt if anyone would be very intersted in downloading and listening to it.

It would seem that we are generally in agreement. Thus far politicians have been using podcasting in uninspired ways that simply replicate what is done on TV and radio. We’re not sure who would really want to listen to political podcasts in their present format either.

When we say shake things up - we mean it. Podcasting is young, uncharted territory with no rulebook. There is great potential for politicians to be really imaginative with their podcasts. For example, a politician attending an event could act like a reporter-at-large, explaining what is going on and talking informally with other attendees. Or after a debate, a politician could do a quick recap and follow up discussion with other colleagues. Politicians could podcast interviews with constituents.

Podcasting is not a replacement for face to face interaction with constituents or the role of the media to pose challenging questions. However, for those politicians who are better speakers than writers, podcasting is an opportunity to create an audio-blog of sorts. Politicians can, and should, set up a comments area on the website where the podcast was downloaded from, to allow listeners to give their feedback. This would help ensure podcasting is not just another a one-way medium.

Laura,

I think that your idea is a good one. Having worked for politicians, after almost every encounter with a politician, people come away disgruntled: “Why didn’t s/he agree with me?” Alternatively, the more suave politicans can find ways of leaving every enquirer with the impression that their plaintiff has their support. In both cases, the long term result can be disappointment.

If the public knew just how many different points-of-view that politicans encounter - the complexity of the issues and the political pressures that politicians have to live with, I suspect that the gulf in understanding would be narrowed somewhat.