For the Guardian, Miranda Sawyer asks – as big spenders such as Amazon and Spotify fill our ears with more commercial, celebrity-driven fare, can grassroots, diverse shows survive? We know that the big celebrity signings and exclusive series are among the tools in the arsenal of those tech companies in their battle for podcast dominance, but can smaller podcasts eke out a living in the shadow of those giants?
“The worry is that other, smaller, odder stories, which might be just as interesting, won’t get funded, and we all miss out. Podcasts, for many years, were about community and ideas. If you had a great concept, whether for an interview show, a drama or an investigation, then a podcast was a low-stakes way of making it real.” Bonus: the article features friend of Media Voices Maeve McClenaghan!
Meanwhile, the podcast bubble shows no signs of deflating quite yet, as podcast subscription provider Quake has received a serious vote of confidence in its latest funding round. Mind you, that might just be because the giants of Apple and Spotify have also launched subscription products for podcasts earlier this year.
Fresh off Zuckerberg’s eye-catching $1 billion fund to attract influencers to Facebook and Instagram, YouTube too has decided that the best way to compete with Snapchat and TikTok is to just throw money at the problem.
Twitter—like most social networks—has been criticised for almost the length of its existence for allowing misinformation to spread. Now the bird website is partnering with newswires and experts to counter that spread without curtailing its social aspects.
If we’re being totally fair, we have to acknowledge that national newspapers can often be vectors for misinformation just like social networks. Not to the same extent, maybe, but still capable of spreading misinfo. As this article from the NYT shows that’s also true for local and regional titles.
This content originally appeared in The Media Roundup, a daily newsletter from Media Voices. Subscribe here: