The First SCOTUSblog Podcast
Many of you many have heard of “podcasting,” which in this context means posting an audio file to the web rather than the usual text file. We tried a form of podcasting when the blog was hosted on Blogger through their “audioblog” feature, but found it unreliable (although convenient because you could submit a post by telephone).
Today, I’m trying to put together a podcast of the Term’s decisions and cert. grants. I’ve done it on the Court steps after (a) coming out from hearing the Justices issue their opinions, and (b) getting a copy of the Orders List from the Clerk’s Office. (Actual reporters receive the decisions in the Press Office as each case is decided.) The post was actually ready at 10:45, but it has taken forever to find a stable wifi connection. Inevitably, the podcast will overlap with Lyle’s posts as we experiment with the technology. Hopefully, each will add something valuable.
The podcast is in “.wma” format, which will probably launch your Windows Media Player. If all you see is gibberish, you probably have to save the file to your desktop and then open it with Windows Media Player. (The file is large and may take a while to download — I’ve tried to balance sound clarity with compression of the file.)
I’d be grateful for your thoughts on whether this is useful. Thanks.
Here is the podcast.
It’s much less useful than a textual post for those of us who A: read SCOTUSBlog at work during the day to keep abreast or recent developmens, and B: don’t have soundcards on our computers even if we were willing to make a racket in the office.
But if it’s sufficiently easier or faster to produce, that may outweigh the nuisance of the medium.
TG responds: Thanks Will. We definitely don’t view it as a substitute.
Comment by Will Baude — June 20, 2005 @ 11:26 am
Would you consider using a different format, such as .mp3? It’s a shame to make a podcast that cannot in fact be played on an ipod.
TG responds: The problem is that .mp3 files that have reasonable sound quality are massive (in my meager experience). I’ll try, however.
Comment by phil — June 20, 2005 @ 11:34 am
The podcast is very nice. However, as someone still awaiting the decision in an argued case, I heavily rely on your blog’s usually quick reporting as decisions are being announced. This morning was agonizing because Lyle’s post simply announced that there were some “second-tier” decisions announced (which could have included mine but didn’t) and then didn’t tell us which cases had been decided and how they came out. I assume Lyle didn’t supply the details because he was expecting the podcast to be ready earlier. Anyway, I’d much prefer that you keep the details coming as fast as you learn them. If you can do that by podcast, that would be great.
Thanks.
Dave Moran
Comment by David Moran — June 20, 2005 @ 11:37 am
Worked like a charm…thanks
Comment by Arthur KC — June 20, 2005 @ 11:47 am
The download only took a few seconds to acquire via DSL, and opened my RealPlayer as a 7:05 min. good quality podcast.
Comment by Marcia Oddi — June 20, 2005 @ 12:02 pm
Tom –
When I try the podcast, this is what I get:
Access to this web page is restricted at this time.
Reason:
The Websense category “Message Boards and Clubs” is filtered. Access to this file is restricted. File type: Audio.
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/June20Cast.wma
I have no trouble getting to SCOTUSblog, is there some way you can avoid getting tagged this way?
Thanks, Roger
TG responds: So sorry Richard. My only bet is that it may be some kind of restriction on your end. I’ll see if anyone else is having the problem.
Comment by Roger Friedman — June 20, 2005 @ 12:09 pm
Sounds good. Please keep the text coming though. Podcasts are great for listening when you have a flight or commute, but as others have stated, getting RSS text is much better because you can scan the text quickly and focus on what you need. Podcasts require a much greater attention span since you really don’t know what is coming up with each second, minute, etc.
Finally, you should be able to get a 7 minute MP3 into the same size as your WMA file. I’m not sure what tools you’re using, but it’s definitely possible.
Comment by Kevin — June 20, 2005 @ 12:23 pm
Add me to those who would prefer the file be .mp3. PalmOne, the maker of my PDA, requires $15.00 worth of third-party software in order to play a .wma file on my device — and then won’t guarantee that the software will break through Microsof’s digital rights encoding. Since I listen to voice files primarily when driving, rather than in the office, the podcast is not useful to me otherwise.
Comment by Bill Siebert — June 20, 2005 @ 12:57 pm
A thought. After your leadin but before you go through each decision in detail, give a brief summary, including the names and a descriptor (eg “a takings case”) for each case decided. That is what I do when reading — skim down the list to see if there is anything I’m particularly interested in.
Comment by Marcia Oddi — June 20, 2005 @ 1:09 pm
I appreciated the very quick podcast update. I have been tracking the takings cases and have an interest in getting news as quickly as possible, so it was useful to get some information so quickly on San Remo. Naturally, I know you do not consider this a substitute for a more detailed evaluation, but for a quick “from the front” report, it was priceless. By the way, my Firm’s Microsoft-only software handled the podcast perfectly (it sounded as though you were embedded with the Supreme Court, were you on a cell phone?). Thanks.
Joel
TG responds: Thanks much. For the parts describing the opinions, I was out on the steps. I’ll be trying to get it to sound better next time.
Comment by Joel Burcat — June 20, 2005 @ 2:03 pm
Podcasting at SCOTUSBlog
Here’s the First SCOTUSBlog Podcast. In a follow-up post called “Podcast Reactions,” Tom Goldstein notes: In general, I’m a bit doubtful about podcasts as particularly…
Comment by Blawgcast.com — June 20, 2005 @ 4:32 pm
Please make it Mac friendly so I can put it on my iPod.
Comment by David — June 21, 2005 @ 7:40 am