Listening to the Pandemic: Podcasting COVID-19

Abstract

An accessible and popular medium, podcasting was one of the ways the public kept up with news throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s highly successful Coronacast is one example of how established news organisations and broadcasters effectively harnessed podcasting to disseminate timely health information and advice. Podcasting was also amenable to fostering understanding and human connection at a time when social contact was limited. While podcasting’s capacity to develop parasocial bonds between listeners and hosts is well-documented (Zuraikat 2020), there has been limited interrogation of how particular presenting styles and production approaches—tailored to the audio medium—are harnessed across a diverse range of podcasts. This takes on added importance during a global health crisis, when accurate information was at a premium amid large amounts of mis- and disinformation circulating online.

This chapter applies deep listening analysis to examine the content and style of three Australian podcasts focused on the COVID-19 pandemic, produced by different organisations and/or individuals. While only one was produced by a news outlet, all deploy journalistic presenting styles and techniques to appeal to listeners. The episodes in focus also showcase the way truth-claims are balanced with emotion in different COVID-19 podcasts, with one encouraging distrust of mainstream media and government. The analysis highlights the way podcasting was used to share timely and accessible health information during the COVID-19 pandemic, while also serving as a warning for the capacity for the medium to be harnessed in ways that could harm social cohesion—particularly in times of upheaval.

While journalists envision themselves safeguarding the democratic process, scientists feel that they do the same for scientific discourse. The former leads to oversimplification of scientific findings so that the public can understand the material, while the latter results in an overemphasis on technical information and the scientific process. (Hinnant and Len-Rios 2009, p. 90)