What we lose when a medium built for the ear surrenders to the camera

This year, podcasting has fully and openly embraced video. While this change has been happening for a while, perhaps since Joe Rogan first recorded himself with a guest using a webcam in 2009, the shift from being purely audio to a mix of audio and visual, often focusing more on the visual, is now complete.

In January, Netflix began broadcasting video versions of popular podcasts from companies like The Ringer and iHeartMedia. This move was partly a reaction to YouTube's significant success with its video podcasts. YouTube became the preferred platform for listening to podcasts in the US in 2024 and then in the UK in 2026, surpassing Spotify. Because of this, Spotify has also improved its video features for its own podcasts as part of an effort to keep users on its platform.

Meanwhile, many podcast creators are increasingly using video. They are setting up studios that often look like showrooms from the past, with uncomfortable chairs that are not ideal for having a conversation. The author worries about the physical strain this might be causing podcasters as they try to balance talking to a guest and looking at the camera.

The author admits to having a reserved opinion about this trend. Podcasts have always served a specific purpose: being a companion during activities like ironing, commuting, or exercising, essentially filling the gaps when not looking at a screen. Adding video changes this. If presenters are performing for the camera as much as for the microphone, it can feel like watching them is the only way to fully understand the content. The author believes that some podcasters' natural talent for audio might be lessened if they have to constantly focus on the camera.

However, the author has come to realise that resisting this change is pointless and has decided to accept, or at least tolerate, video podcasts. This is seen as a permanent shift with benefits. Making a show visual allows podcasters to share short clips of their best moments on social media, which is a valuable tool for smaller podcasts that don't have large marketing budgets. The author feels it would be unfair to deny them this opportunity simply out of a strict adherence to audio-only podcasts.

Even more surprisingly for the author's anti-video stance, some video podcasts are quite effective. Comedians, in particular, seem to perform well on camera. The author enjoys catching video clips of Elis James and John Robins, partly to see the host's expressions, like the redness of his face when discussing his frustration with a less-than-perfect credit score.

Some podcasts, like those from The Ringer, are now skillfully incorporating clips and images from the movies and shows they discuss, which improves the viewing experience compared to just watching people talk for an hour. Even historical podcasts, which might briefly show a picture of a historical figure during a discussion, are finding ways to make the content more visually engaging.

Despite these points, the author still has criticisms. Many video podcasts still resemble low-quality daytime TV shows, losing the special atmosphere of their audio versions. The author also gets frustrated by podcasters who seem to forget their audio-only listeners. Hand gestures are useless to those who cannot see them, and when something funny happens in the studio, it should be explained to listeners instead of just laughing along.

Ultimately, the author still prefers most podcasts to remain audio-only, providing casual listening while doing everyday tasks. However, the author concedes that video podcasts are not entirely a bad idea, especially when compared to the prospect of AI-generated podcasts, though that is a topic for another discussion.