In Reality

People say they long for that misty past when the news was just the facts, but that never was, of course. Newsrooms are human organizations and journalists are people and however they may strive for objectivity, they come with biases shaped by newsroom culture newsroom and audience expectations. The smart game isn’t to avoid all bias; it’s to recognize it and then broaden your news consumption beyond one perspective. Today’s guest has for years been helping people do that.  He’s John Gable, founder of AllSides, known for its media bias chart, which ranks well-known newsrooms by their perceived political leanings. All Sides also aggregates the most pressing news of the day linking to Right Left and Center takes on each headline. John and Eric discuss how the bias rankings are made and how they ought to be used. Eric's a user, because it gets me out of my echo chamber. You might consider doing the same...Topics00:00 The Origins of AllSides02:57 Understanding Bias Ratings06:05 The Business Model of AllSides09:03 The Question of Objectivity in News12:12 Bridging the Divide: Understanding Different Perspectives15:06 The Role of Technology in Polarization18:02 The Red-Blue Translator: Bridging Language Gaps20:50 Addressing Misinformation and Vaccine Hesitancy23:57 Rebuilding Trust in Journalism27:02 The Path to Societal Change30:02 The Future of Media and EngagementWebsite - free episode transcriptswww.in-reality.fmProduced by Tom Platts at Sound Sapiensoundsapien.comAlliance for Trust in Mediaalliancefortrust.com

Welcome to In Reality, the podcast about truth, disinformation and the media, with Eric Schurenberg - the founder of the Alliance for Trust in Media. This week…Everyone with a keyboard and Internet access has weighed in with their opinion about why the Trump campaign won and Harris’s lost. That’s fine. But here at In Reality, we’re not so interested in campaign strategy, but we really care about the role that disinformation and the media played in how people made up their minds. In a less polluted information environment, would there have been a different outcome? In Eric’s class at the University of Chicago, he put that question to three highly regarded journalists from different corners of the media world who were good enough to show up as guest speakers. Paul Farhi, the award-winning former media reporter at the Washington Post; Nayeema Raza, co-host of the media podcast Mixed Signals at the innovative news site Semafor; and Isaac Saul, the political reporter and founder of the successful newsletter Tangle.Website - free episode transcriptswww.in-reality.fmProduced by Tom Platts at Sound Sapiensoundsapien.comAlliance for Trust in Mediaalliancefortrust.com

The US election, which takes place the day after this episode releases, has been the most fact-challenged election in recent memory. Compared to, say, four years ago, truth is very much on the run.  Social media platforms, most people’s source of information, have pulled back on flagging falsehoods. In the case of X, the platform’s owner actively solicits and spreads them.But there are a few hardy organizations that remain dedicated to debunking the most damaging rumors in our civic conversation. One of the most determined is Politifact, run out of the journalism education and research center, Poynter Institute. Politifact’s editor in chief Katie Sanders is a long-time journalist who took an evening away from stemming the tide of falsehood to address my University of Chicago class on disinformation and the election a couple days ago. One thing is sure: The election will end but the lies won’t. You’ll still need a strategy to find your way to the truth, and truth tellers like Politifact will be more needed than ever.QUESTIONS FOR KATIE SANDERSCould you say it’s a truth o meter statement. The statement that Trump is a fascist. How about Trump shares many of the characteristics of a fascist leader. When do you permit your own team to use emotionally charged words like fascist. I noticed that Hincliffe’s joke about Puerto Rico was called racist in the PoitiFact story.Origin story. Started well before the Trump era, when political lying was of the garden variety exaggerations and omissions. What was the fact-checking like in those days? How is this election different fom those days and even the more recent years of 2022 and 2020.  Russian interference? How do you decide what to cover. There’s such a torrent of falsehoods to choose from. Take us through a fact check. Let’s say, to consider one that passed through Politifact recently: FEMA gives only $750 to families affected by hurricane, but illegal migrants get credit cards loaded with $3,500. What was the rating on that and what does it mean?  How long does process this take? Can you use AI to expedite things? What’s your agreement with Meta and TikTok. Have they pulled back on content moderation? Have you noticed that AI is increasing the degree of misinformation? What’s the best advice for someone to navigate this information environment? SIFT? Website - free episode transcriptswww.in-reality.fmProduced by Tom Platts at Sound Sapiensoundsapien.comAlliance for Trust in Mediaalliancefortrust.com

We’ve seen social media disrupt elections before, but this time feels louder, angrier. Maybe it’s the retreat of content moderators, maybe the metamorphosis of Twitter into X, and maybe the growing sophistication of adversaries from Russia, China and Iran. Today, we are lucky to have two key veterans of the social media battlescape join us on In Reality. They are Nina Jankowicz, the founder of the American Sunlight Project, an expert on Russian disinformation and the head of the Department of Homeland Security’s short-lived Disinformation Governance Board. And Yoel Roth, now the VP of trust and safety at Match Group and the former head of content moderation at Twitter. We’ll cover what makes social media in this election feel so disturbingly different; how foreign countries are trying to sow chaos; and why X in spite of Musk, is still culturally relevant.Like some previous episodes, Eric recorded this live in his class at the University of Chicago. It was October 14th, when the floods in North Carolina unleashed a dam break of rumor and lies on social media.Website - free episode transcriptswww.in-reality.fmProduced by Tom Platts at Sound Sapiensoundsapien.comAlliance for Trust in Mediaalliancefortrust.com

At this moment, weeks shy of the 2024 election, the polls are showing that the race between Trump and Harris is neck and neck. It’s tight nationally. It’s tight in all the swing states. If you think you know who’s going to win, you’re going on gut, not numbers.So what good are polls this year? In Eric's class at the University of Chicago, he put the question to guest speaker Jocelyn Kiley, senior associate director, US politics and public opinion at the Pew Research Center. It turns out that polls can tell you a lot, even now, if you know how to look. Jocelyn and I discuss the stability of poll results this year despite events like the assassination attempts and what that says about the information environment. We’ll discuss how to tell trustworthy polls from slapdash ones; and we’ll cover how you really should read polls, which is not to find out who’s ahead in the horse race. This interview was recorded live in my class at the University of Chicago’s Graham School on October 7th.Website - free episode transcriptswww.in-reality.fmProduced by Tom Platts at Sound Sapiensoundsapien.comAlliance for Trust in Mediaalliancefortrust.com

It has become general wisdom in these polarized times that all the news you consume is slanted one way or another. The New York Times is not all the news that’s fit to print and Fox News not fair and balanced, to quote mottoes those newsrooms used to use. Now, most would agree that the Times reports through a left-leaning lens, and Fox frankly calls itself an organ of the right. So where does that leave us news consumers? How do you avoid being drawn into a biased bubble? How do you distinguish between honest perspective and disregard of factuality? How do you find your way to the truth, especially in a contentious election period? Those are the questions I take up today with two distinguished journalists from opposite sides of the political spectrum. From the left, Brian Stelter, the chief media reporter for CNN, and vocal critic of the Trump Administration and its supporters in the press, especially Fox.  And from the right, Jonah Goldberg, co-founder of The Dispatch, which has stake out a thoughtful and respected stance on the conservative side of the ledger. The interview took place in my class at the University of Chicago on Truth, Disinformation and the Media on September 23rd. Website - free episode transcriptswww.in-reality.fmProduced by Tom Platts at Sound Sapiensoundsapien.comAlliance for Trust in Mediaalliancefortrust.com

The goal of modern disinformation campaigns is not necessarily to turn audiences into true believers but rather to turn them into cynics, to persuade them that you can’t trust anything said by any institution, whether media or science or government. In this world view, there is no such thing as objective truth, everyone is biased or otherwise untrustworthy, so the conclusion is that you need a strong man—a Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump, say—to lead you through. Today’s guest has an antidote to this dysfunctional belief. He’s Jonathan Rauch, a senior fellow at Brookings Institution, a contributing writer at The Atlantic and the author of A Powerful Book called the Constitution of Knowledge. Rauch says there is objective truth, although he’d call it objective knowledge. What matters is not the claim itself, but how the claim was vetted. Reality is a collaboration of people who may disagree on everything else but agree on the rules of evidence, on the process of argumentation, and it’s that process that eventually yields what is factual. Do listen. The conversation is bracing and really clarifying. Note: The conversation took place in my class on truth, disinformation and the media at the University of Chicago’s Graham School on Monday, September 9th. Website - free episode transcriptswww.in-reality.fmProduced by Tom Platts at Sound Sapiensoundsapien.comAlliance for Trust in Mediaalliancefortrust.com

In Reality is taking a summer break, so this is an episode we’ve posted before, but I thought that in the middle of a US Presidential campaign, it might be a good idea to review my conversation with Glenn Kessler, editor of the Washington Post’s Fact Checker column and arguably the creator of the fact checking industry. In the Post, Glenn and his team have been holding both campaigns to account with equal intensity. Thanks to them, Post readers are now aware, for example, of Tim Walz’s exaggerations of his military record, as well as the barrage of conspiratorial falsehoods coming from the Trump campaign. In the conversation, Glenn makes the point that fact-checks can only take us so far. You the reader have to be willing to accept facts that don’t conform to your beliefs. That last mile, if you will, of factuality, is not easy to travel. But it’s our responsibility as voters in a consequential election, and ours alone. After all, one way to make your vote count—and the only way you control entirely—is to make sure it’s based on truth. Website - free episode transcriptswww.in-reality.fmProduced by Tom Platts at Sound Sapiensoundsapien.comAlliance for Trust in Mediaalliancefortrust.com

People have a lot of complaints about media in these polarized times. Take your pick: The mainstream press is biased, elitist, sensationalistic, hyper-partisan. If you’re on the right, you may believe that it deliberately enables falsehood. Today’s guest is very much NOT on the right, but he agrees. Tom Johnson is a professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Journalism and his book The Press and Democratic Backsliding makes the claim that media have failed democracy by losing control of the information landscape and allowing anti-democratic voices to thrive. In his view, the strength of the MAGA movement is not merely a cultural or political phenomenon. It’s a failure of journalism. Those are fightin’ words. Tom and I talk about the role of the press in spinelessly empowering authoritarianism, about the media’s lopsided obsession with then-candidate Joe Biden’s age, its bias towards conflict and negativity, and, finally, lest you entirely despair, what to do about it all. So there’s hope.Website - free episode transcriptswww.in-reality.fmProduced by Tom Platts at Sound Sapiensoundsapien.comAlliance for Trust in Mediaalliancefortrust.com

Today's guest is Andy Norman, philosophy professor at Carnegie Mellon University and the author of a fascinating book, Mental Immunity: Infectious Ideas, Mind Parasites and the Search for a Better way to Think. Andy argues that it’s possible to immunize the mind against harmful beliefs, just as it’s possible to immunize the body against germs. He and Eric discuss the evolutionary origins of skepticism, ideas that weaken the reasoned inquiry, how to decide whether a belief is reasonable, and applications of mental immunity in real life.Join Eric's 'Truth, Disinformation & The 2024 Election' Class at The University of ChicagoIt’s open to everyone via Zoom. It will discuss what’s going on in the coverage of the election, with a wonderful collection of guest speakers, educators, prominent political reporters and polling experts.It will convene every Monday evening, Central US time, in the nine weeks leading up to the US election and one week afterwards. Don't miss out...Register now: https://masterliberalarts.uchicago.edu/landing-page/noncredit/trust-and-media/Website - free episode transcriptswww.in-reality.fmProduced by Tom Platts at Sound Sapiensoundsapien.comAlliance for Trust in Mediaalliancefortrust.com