I like the premise of the article but why aren't podcasts cited as more influential than radio? Not only is AM propagation not needed for a podcast but it's purely democratic: you have something to say you can publish it. And podcasts are very popular. Everyone knows Joe Rogan and Tim Ferriss are reaching audiences in the millions but even smaller podcasts like the No Agenda Show are reaching audiences larger than cable news shows.
Most people don't listen to podcasts - its not a general audience kind of thing - as someone who travels frequently even I find myself listening not infrequently to terrestrial radio
Is AM radio a general audience thing? I don't know many people that listen to it and the ones that do are all older. I know a whole lot of people that listen to podcasts. Maybe it's more of a difference among generations? I can't think of that last time I listened to the radio in a car. These days, I only use Spotify and a podcast app.
Dunno about the US, but in Europe, most stations have shut down, or significantly reduced their service. Sad when you live in a valley where you can't get local radio over FM, but where Middle-Eastern and Russian shortwave stations come through cleanly.
Everyone out here listens to Internet Radio or Spotify.
Quote: „...as better-sounding FM signals become cheaper to broadcast and would-be listeners turn to the internet for entertainment.“
So the premise of the article, in my understanding, is „let’s ignore the bigger media and look at his somewhat anachronistic, yet surprisingly lively niche“.
AM shows aren’t usually available for download on demand, and the audience are always in FOMO mode. The shows usually lean conservative something that is substantially missing from “mainstream TV, public radio and Podcasts”.
