Podcast Reactions
on Jun 20, 2005 at 1:22 pm
Thanks very much for your comments on the blog and e-mails about the Podcast. For those who are interested in the technology and what we might do with it, continue reading after the jump.
Several people sent encouraging notes, which we appreciate.
Others mentioned that the written posts are most valuable for people looking for information in real time. That makes perfect sense, and we’ll try to make sure that any podcasts don’t detract from the effort to get written posts asap.
Related to the last comment, several people noted that they generally listen to podcasts while traveling. (The term podcast itself refers to listening to a file on an iPod.) As a consequence, they felt it would be most useful to have the podcast in mp3 format. I’ll try to do that.
Several people mentioned the difference in sound quality between the introduction to each case (which I recorded over the weekend in the office) and the summary of the opinion (which I recorded outside the Court, and which as a result had ambient noise). Next time, I think I’ll actually record the summaries in my car, which will be significantly quieter.
Howard Bashman helpfully noted a mistake. The abortion parental consent case is from New Hampshire, not Pennsylvania.
C.E. Petit suggested creating separate podcasts for orders and opinions. That’s a good idea, particularly for next Monday when there will be a lot of both.
In general, I’m a bit doubtful about podcasts as particularly useful for what we do. But we’ll probably try them for some of the remaining days of the term. And we’ll see if they have some value in any Supreme Court nomination hearings.
Thanks again for your helpful comments and e-mails.
