Spurred on by Doc Searls, Jeff Jarvis is talking about why the conventional model of TV is exploding. A few data points I thought of immediately:

• Today Jon Udell had a write-up about a how-to clip that he watched online about fixing your printer.
• Robert Scoble's Channel 9 is just a couple of guys with a video camera showing us the inside of Microsoft.
• Doug Kaye's IT Conversations is already as good or better than any radio program I listen to.

Each of these is "microcasting." None of them expect to hit an audience of millions, although I'm sure that latter two, at least, wouldn't mind. Why do you care? Because you get content more specifically aimed at what you want. I don't know what the audience for IT Conversations is, but it doesn't have to be huge for Doug to make it work. That means he can afford to produce content for a niche market that is un(der)-served by traditional broadcast.

I just had an idea: why aren't any of the campaigns doing this? For very little money, a campaign, even one for Governor of a smaller Western state (hint, hint) could afford to broadcast their own TV program around their candidate. The trick isn't technical---heck, even I can figure that out---the trick is to make it interesting. But that's why campaigns have liberal arts majors working for them, right?