As for the writer of the weekly column, yes, your readers benefit. You can take that column and put it in audio form for those folks who choose not to read the column. If they have the option to hear your column, then that’s what they want. For the person who talked about commuters, everyone doesn’t read. The audio book explosion is a sign that everyone doesn’t just want to read.

The podcasts also allows for more depth. For instance, we did a 1,500-word Q and A with Robin Stone, but it was a 30-minute interview! There was more depth there. We did the same with Michael Eric Dyson. You can listen to the whole piece rather than me “edit” the interview. Also, Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. recently gave a speech that blasted the mayor of Chicago and others. But there were other elements he discussed. In the past, all you would hear from the speech is the snippet on radio or TV, but with the podcast, we recorded the whole speech and allowed you to listen to it. That way, you can judge for yourself what he said and not have to go through the filter of a reporter and editor. This technology allows us to drill deeper than we’ve ever been able to do.

But if I write a weekly column for a newspaper, what benefit do my readers get from becoming listeners?

This is the same issue with HuffingtonPost.com. Most of those clowns didn’t need a blog to tell us anything. They have avenues in mainstream media on which to flap their gums.

I’m not getting the newspaper – podcast angle. Also, I’m not sure how they’re going to pay for the downloading bandwidth without commercials. My commute is mostly by commuter train so reading to/from work is a given.