I enjoy podcasts. I seek the more technologically-oriented ones because, hey, I have some idea about what they’re talking, but there’s always room for improvement. I was sad when Binary Revolution Radio stopped broadcasting, but I focused on other things. I have listened/watched to TWiT & Co., CommandN, Digital Underground, Hak5, SECTHIS. Some of these I still follow. Others, not so much. Even if nobody is perfect, it’s hard to ignore some of the pretty big errors in reporting I came across while listening to some of these.

When Web 2.0 started, everybody was touting it as a way for big media to get a run for its money: content was created and distributed by everybody, and many expected better, more accurate reporting. No such luck. While some sites still shine through with great content, I’m sad to see a lot of the established names of podcasting are not much better than what they are trying to replace. Rushed-out shows and/or dealing with matters that completely elude the podcaster’s understanding make for very poor reporting. While, sure, I have learned a thing or two from listening to these shows¹, I usually stop following something when a major error is made regarding what the show is reporting on. From Security Now’s numerous gaffes - thanks to self-proclaimed and widely-disclaimed ’security guru’ Steve Gibson - to ignorance of some technological matters, many podcasts fail to deliver technology, despite their claims.

It seems it’s more often a matter of who you know rather than what you are selling. It’s great to hold a panel with Merlin Mann, John Gruber and the Macalope² but sometimes it’s harsh to be just a listener and find you know more on some topics than the hosts. It eats away at the credibility of the show, and even though Internet entrepreneurs know your name, I don’t think you should open your mouth if you’re not sure of what’s coming out of it³.

I’m much more inclined to follow most of hackermedia.org’s offerings to find tech news, despite the (sometimes) more amateurish recordings. The content is really there and a lot of the shows actually have original content - they don’t simply leech off bloggers and forums to find news worthy of playtime. I agree there should be something for everybody, no matter what their technological prowess, but that does not make it OK to misinform. How hard, really, can it be to read your sources right?

1. Otherwise I would have quit a long time ago [↩]
2. MacBreak Weekly [↩]
3. Coincidentally, Kevin Rose’s iPhone speculations came to mind, as they ended up being quite inaccurate for someone claiming at the time to have a source inside of Apple. [↩]