SOBRE ESTE EPISÓDIO
Armon Owlia: Coming up on “This American Divide…”
Owlia: Better research must be done. Otherwise, there is no accountability.
Sharon McMahon: Media literacy is going to be an ongoing and important topic.
Ceally Smith: It helped me move the energy, so that's something that I focused on.
David Barstow: If you’re a responsible news organization, then you don’t repeat that zombie statistic.
Owlia: Looking at only one side does a great disservice to the subject and the public…
Owlia: Do you like what you see?
(static effect)
Michael Smerconish: Is social media harmful? That’s the question being raised and debated.
(static effect)
Joe Fryer: We’ve got families all over the country who are dealing with this.
(static effect)
Tom Costello: As anti-Semitic content has surged on Twitter after Elon Musk, who emphasized free speech, took full control. Use of the N-word also jumped 500 percent.
(static effect)
Jo Ling Kent: After close reviews of the President’s recent tweets, it banned him, “due to the risk of further incitement of violence.”
(static effect)
President Joe Biden: It was an enraged mob that had been whipped up into a frenzy.
Alisyn Camerota: The alleged attacker posted conspiracy theories on Facebook.
(static effect)
Brian Latimer: The social media business is evolving a lot these days.
(static effect)
Alisyn Camerota: “Spider-Man” star Tom Holland announcing he’s taking a break from social media for the sake of his mental health.
(static effect)
Jake Tapper: Cherished ideals of free speech are in the hands of erratic billionaires.
Owlia: It’s time to examine “This American Divide.”
Owlia: This is a problem that has existed long before any of us. After a long journey through history, technology, psychology, political science, and education, we find one thing to be sure– any solution we must implement won’t be simple. Like I said from the start…
Owlia (in “A Brief History of Politics”): The polarization we see today is just the first sprouts of a tree planted centuries prior, and if you know anything about removing plants, especially ones that have grown for centuries, it’s never that easy to clear the roots.
Owlia: Will the solutions presented here be realistic? Yes. And no. Any type of solution needs to be SMART. Not just literal smart decisions but also SMART decisions in their being specific, measurable, achievable, reasonable, and timely. However, its success relies on everyone agreeing on one thing– things need to change for the better for all of us. First, we need to mutually understand that what we hear from the most influential people in America, or the world may not be, in court-speak, “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” As we’ve seen, it’s easy to put a piece of information out there that may be false, then market it as truth.
David Barstow: My name is David Barstow. I teach investigative reporting at Berkeley Journalism. Before that, I spent 20 years working for The New York Times, almost all of that in the investigative unit.
Owlia: On top of winning four Pulitzer Prizes for individual reporting, Barstow has made a career out of holding prominent political figures, including former President Donald Trump, accountable. Notably, he co-authored the Times' investigative piece looking into the tax schemes made by the Trump and his family.
Barstow: If you can just put the “fake news” brand on something, it means you don’t actually have to engage in the substance of what those articles are actually delivering.
Owlia: Now, how exactly do we address that? Assume everything we hear from authority and people of influence is a lie? No. We already do that right now, with deadly consequences. However, we must both learn and practice better critical thinking. We must look beyond our own point of view and try to see things from every possible angle. You’ve probably heard the phrase, “Think with your head and heart.” We all know how to think with our hearts, but our heads? Questionable. The information centers need to help guide us better. Institutions such as the news media and social media platforms must change to better crack down on helping distinguish what is misconception, misinformation, rhetoric, and lie versus what is the truth, backed up by facts that can be proved without interpretation. Reporters, for example, must avoid letting their personal views get in the way of their reporting. Both parties came to power in the same democratically elected process, so to treat one favorably over another is a disservice. Even if the reporter admires who they have in front of them, they deserve just as strong and intense a questioning as someone they may dislike or oppose. If someone lies or spreads misinformation without immediate correction, in this age where everything basically “lives forever,” all it takes is one utterance to become misinformed.
Barstow: If you’re a responsible news organization, then you don’t repeat that zombie statistic.
Owlia: Look again at Bernie Sanders' "Meet The Press” appearance on February 18, 2018. During the interview with Chuck Todd, Sanders claimed…
Bernie Sanders: Forty percent of the guns in this country are sold without any background checks.
Owlia: Before Sanders said it in 2018, President Obama made this same claim five years prior after the events of Sandy Hook. In 2013, after the Post fact-checked Obama, the 40% statistic was determined to be, as the Post claimed, "stale." By 2018, new studies published the year prior showed the 40% statistic to be false, as the real numbers were 22% of gun owners obtaining a firearm between 2015 and 2017 without a background check and 13% among purchased firearms. However, it was not challenged on the air and allowed to go uncorrected until the Post fact-checked it two days later.
Barstow: The propagandists are the people who, who they say something. They're, like, it becomes clear that what they said was false and they just keep repeating it over and over and over again. That is not journalism.
Owlia: Better research must be done; mistakes this apparent cannot happen. Otherwise, there is no accountability.
Barstow: A news organization says something, it's nonsense. And another news organization actually is the thing that points out that it's nonsense. Right? And that's like, that, that actually is what should be happening. Is that when news outlets get things wrong and they do get things wrong all the time, then, then other news outlets are, like, very quick to, like, point that out and to, to say, like, they got it wrong.
Owlia: Additionally, journalists have a prevailing attitude that only one side of the issue is enough to do good reporting. According to data from the Pew Research Center, 59% of journalists who believe misinformation is a big problem also believe that all sides do not always deserve equal coverage. Both must be acknowledged to help bridge the gap between what is true and false. Even before considering this factor, the issues we face are multi-dimensional and not monochromatic. Looking at only one side does a great disservice to the subject and the public.
Barstow: Where the journalism is terrible is when you come at something from a point of view and you just, like, filter out anything that doesn't support your preexisting ideas about how the world works, where you, like, filter out information that would completely undermine your hypothesis of the story.
Owlia: News media is not the only institution that must change. More important than the information we learn is how we learn it. The two factors that must be improved– not only how we learn and apply critical thinking, but updating media literacy courses to better accommodate the world we live in.
Sharon McMahon: I’m Sharon McMahon. I’m a Jefferson Award winner for Outstanding Public Service By A Private Citizen. I’ve been in a variety of publications, news outlets, you know, that sort of thing.
Owlia: McMahon, also known as "America's Government Teacher," has combated against misinformation through her podcast, "Sharon Says So."
McMahon: I think media literacy is going to be an ongoing and important topic.
Owlia: Already, the Office of Educational Technology, which operates under the United States Department of Education, has developed a solution– a Digital Literacy Accelerator which would provide tools in K through 12 education directly addressing social media misinformation, including “Fake News Fitness,” “Keeping It Real: Using Deepfakes to Combat Misinformation in Multiple Languages,” “Little Tech,” “Agents of Influence,” and “Journalism Jumble.” Such tools and games directly address combating misinformation and disinformation, promoting critical thinking in evaluating social media sources and determining if they are reliable. State-by-state, there is much work to be done. In only 18 states so far, there are either laws currently in place or being debated in statehouses that would fully embrace changes and teach better digital media literacy in the K through 12 system– California, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Delaware. On top of that, the government needs to take collective action and start to regulate social media like other communication institutions, such as television and newspapers. In fact, the Supreme Court, at time of writing, is arguing such a case that would create massive precedent as to the accountability of social media companies.
McMahon: There's really no question that, I mean, I don't know of anybody who doesn't think that Section 230 needs to be reformed. It has failed to keep pace with the digital developments. It has failed to anticipate things like YouTube algorithms. It has failed to anticipate what social media would look like today. You know, it was written in 1996, when you would like, dial up on your, you know, would make a bunch of the modem, wouldn't tie up your phone line and make a bunch of noises. And then the sites you could visit were, like, AOL. You know what I mean? It, it really failed to anticipate, obviously, for good reason. So it needs to be reformed, no question. But that is part of it.
Owlia: Social media companies need to understand such changes will mean long-term survival, not just for the companies but for the public overall.
McMahon: They have the ability to police their platforms if they choose to. So I do think, again, this would go along with a reform of Section 230. They do bear some responsibility because they are profiting dramatically. Personally, I don't think that you should be able to make billions of dollars in ways that are actively harming your users. That's not to say that everybody who uses social media is harmed. Not at all. I love social media. I've made a career on social media. Social media has done tremendously valuable things for me. But I do get death threats. I do have people figuring out where my children go to school. I do have people telling me to kill myself. I do have people sending me hate mail. So there's, you know, do I personally hold Instagram responsible for that? No, I don't. But when we're talking about minors and profiting off of the eyeballs, the attention of minors, you do have a heightened responsibility beyond what adults are responsible for.
Owlia: However, simply modifying and enforcing Section 230 won’t be enough. Further legislation that would be preventionary rather than reactionary would assist in handling the misinformation crisis.
McMahon: One of the things that they, this is one of the issues before the Supreme Court right now is how responsible are they for their algorithms? How, you know, like to what extent should they be held responsible for the algorithms that push harmful content to people, whether they're a minor or an adult? YouTube is like finding a needle in a haystack, right? There are billions of videos on YouTube and they want to keep you on the platform because that's how they make money off of you. And so consequently, they're going to push content to you that it thinks you will enjoy based on what you or your travels around the Internet, not just your use on the site, your travels around the Internet as a whole. That's not my responsibility as a user. I can't control any of that. That's their responsibility to, to responsibly use algorithms and to responsibly profit off of their users. It's not your responsibility to profit off of their users. So, no, I don't think they are being held accountable to the extent that they should be. I do think they're, personally that they are responsible for their algorithms. They made them. Nobody else has control over them but them. And in some ways, they have failed to anticipate the repercussions, the huge repercussions that their algorithms have had in the real world.
Owlia: A reliable way to hold a company accountable is financially. Laws and consumer attitudes must change to create an environment where social media companies would be punished for misinformation and fiscally rewarded for cracking down on misinformation and taking active steps to heal the problems they've caused. This would include the companies becoming more transparent about their operations and allowing government oversight.
Kara Fox: I'm Kara Fox. I'm a third year in the clinical psychology graduate program at UNC. I'm pursuing my Ph.D., um, and just got my Master's last fall.
Owlia: Fox's research specializes in the clinical impact of social media on adolescent development, a time when we are highly vulnerable to dependency issues.
Fox: Everything that came out a couple of years ago with, like, Facebook and, or like, Meta doing internal investigations and knowing that Instagram was harming young girls but like, not doing anything about it. Yeah. Look, I think that there needs to be more accountability for these companies and transparency like, they, I think it's a real problem that they have all of this, all these resources, all this money to, like, do all this research, but like, it's under their own umbrella that they can hold close to their chest and not share despite it affecting so many people out there. But I don't think that there's anything, like, legally that really addresses that appropriately yet. So, yeah, I would love to see more accountability for these social media companies and, like, not see, I don't know, kids get so affected, like, in the mix of all these money grabs. But I don't know what the answer is, so I don't really know what the recommendations are that I would give. But yeah, I think they, I think they should be held more responsible.
Owlia: Social media companies must find ways to incorporate fact-checking systems and mental health checks into posts. And it's not impossible to do. YouTube, Twitter, and Instagram accomplished such feats for posts regarding the 2020 election, the validity of news sources, and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Fox: I do think like some of the stuff we've seen recently that they've done like, initi… like, um, implementing kind of mental health checks, like, if they kind of detect that someone's searching for something risky like, or, you know, searching for suicide or self-harm or anorexia and like trying to find those communities online, they have put in some stops and checks in place there. But I don't know. The last time I kind of interacted with those, they were like, “Are you sure you want to search this?” And like, I can see a kid just like, tapping, “Yeah,” but there's also, you know, age limits and parental limits and stuff because the technology has advanced a lot. So, there is the, is more of an ability for parents to monitor that. And that's really tricky because I don't think that, like, you know, when these platforms become so mammoth, like they cannot regulate every single second, everything that's out there, like it's just going to be so much content on everything that's accessible. So it's a really tricky question on, like, how you would, like, I know there's been some studies kind of doing some, like, language analysis on kinds of posts that are more suicidal or risky to see, like, trying to identify and, like, teach these, like, A.I. almost to identify like whether somebody is, like, actually at risk.
Owlia: So, yes, on an institutional level, a lot of change needs to happen. But that pales in comparison to another factor; one which will either make or break these recommendations. We are the horses being taken to the river, but we must make the choice to drink and do it consistently. In other words, we take personal responsibility and accountability.
Ceally Smith: My name is Ceally Smith and I’m an entrepreneur. I would say that I was a believer of QAnon at one time. So, I don't believe that it is social media's responsibility to be able to control how humans respond, will react.
Owlia: Remember, psychologically, our brains tend to stick to what we feel is true rather than what may actually be true.
Todd Washburn: My name is Todd Washburn. I teach a course called "The Polarization of American Politics" that I've taught since the fall of 2019.
Owlia: Washburn teaches the course at the Harvard Extension School.
Washburn: There are ways to make people, to make the scales fall from people's eyes. One of the ways is by putting them in mixed groups, in groups of people who don't always agree with them. And so, that mixing and what I'm saying to you is the one of the biggest problems that one of the biggest causes of polarization is we are so well-sorted. That mixing is really effective for preventing people from going down what we'll call “rabbit holes.” It's really effective. More mixing, less sorting.
Owlia: Getting out of the echo chamber is not easy. However, it's an action vital to move forward and tackle this issue head-on. Who knows? You may even find someone struggling as much as you are. What can be more healing than coming together?
Washburn: When, when we, when we care about an issue very much, we, humans, we're hardwired this way, engage in what's called "motivated reasoning." We reason not to find the truth, but to defend what we already believe, if that makes sense, that's motivated reasoning and education gives you a lot of skills and tools to reason very effectively. And so, look, I'm not arguing that people should therefore get less education. Education itself is not the problem. Our polarization is the problem. And the fact that we are so divided, but we can use, but, but highly educated people can use the skills they developed through education, the gathering and marshaling of evidence, making effective arguments, hearing counter arguments; all of those skills can be put to use defending your position rather than just seeking objective truth. And when we're really divided, our brains are wired to make us want to defend our positions. Seeking objective truth is not an easy thing to do.
Owlia: Families can work together and learn how to communicate with each other. Separating people from the screens and having real human moments helps allow for more positive interactions and builds essential skills. Once again, Kara Fox.
Fox: Parents and teens, I think, I would encourage more communication. Just in general, like teens like to talk about their experiences. It's helpful for them to, like, feel understood and also to understand on their own as they're processing it while they're talking. Mindfulness is something that is kind of an interesting, like, base for possible intervention and that, like, spending some time reflecting on what you're doing online, why you're doing it, what you're doing in the exact moment, just because I think a lot of that stuff is mindless and doesn't necessarily align with values or like how we would decide to spend our time, so, working on mindfulness and kind of flexing that muscle would help counteract that. So I would say that and just, like, yeah, the values piece, like thinking about, like, what do you want to do? How do you want to spend your time? How does social media fit into those goals? And what kind of limits do you need to set?
Owlia: Additionally, something we can all do is take time to learn media literacy, especially when out of the K through 12 education system. Having courses in place is one thing, but it comes down to personal initiative for both younger people and adults. Once again, Sharon McMahon.
McMahon: Media literacy is, it's a very big problem when it comes to adults because you have to want to learn media literacy. You can't shove it down somebody's throat. When it comes to the education of younger people. I think there's no question that it needs to be added into, you know, standardized into curriculum, school curriculum. So if the goal is to produce well-rounded students, that's, that will be part of it. The Internet's not going anywhere. Chances are good that you will need to take a media literacy course in college at some point, just like you take a freshman comp class. Some schools have already, colleges have already incorporated media literacy classes. So, I definitely think that's like, an emerging field of study.
Owlia: But in the end, the one crucial thing is power. Even though those in influence have the power, what is often forgotten is that we, the consumer, have just as much to demand and create change. As a result, we can choose how the rest of the story plays out. It inevitably comes down to even the simplest of choices. These include what you say and post online…
McMahon: You're still responsible for your conduct online. You're still responsible for the hate mail that you, you know, for the death threats that you send me. There should be better tools that the social media companies create for people like me to be able to deal with people like that. But nevertheless, it's still their responsibility for having sent that message in the first place.
Owlia: Take time to think about whether what you're posting or sharing is accurate or if you're adding anything to move the conversation forward. With all the information on the internet stuck in an echo chamber, who knows? We've probably even been sharing misinformation without realizing it.
McMahon: I firmly believe that you alone are responsible for what you post and repost on the internet. You do have to take personal responsibility for retweeting something or put it, you know, sending something to your Instagram stories. That is your responsibility alone. And if you do not have the time or ability to ensure that that information is accurate, then you should not repost it. That is your personal responsibility, not, you have to ask yourself, “Do I have the time and ability to fact check this right now?” Maybe the answer is no, and that's okay. But then your responsibility is to not repost that information. We're all in the process right now of creating our digital legacies. You know, you look at the papers of Abraham Lincoln or the papers of, you know, the letters between John and Abigail Adams, etc. these legacies that people have left us through their writings. We are creating our own digital legacies by with the DMs that we send, the content we post, the content we repost. And we have to ask ourselves– what kind of digital legacy do we want to create for our descendants, for our loved ones? And that's something that I think is very, you need to take personal responsibility for in ensuring that the legacy you are leaving people is one that you will be proud of.
Owlia: Another form of accountability is a simple pull of the lever against politicians who spread misinformation and take no accountability for it. Instead, endorse those willing to build bridges between people, not walls. If social media companies do not understand the consequences of the product, deny them their money and leave until they change their ways. There are many simple things you can do. However, this is the simplest– do you want to do the right thing for yourself and those around you? Do you take the easy road by staying divided and keep making the issue worse? Or do you take the hard path but, ultimately, the right one? By doing the work to self-improve, and trying to reach out, create understanding, and come together despite our disagreements? Let’s end this search where we began, that of the tale of Ceally Smith, who reluctantly got into QAnon through her boyfriend, then became ensnared through the death of Jeffrey Epstein, which led her down the rabbit hole and brought her mental state lower and lower, until she came to a fateful choice during the 2020 presidential election.
Smith: Yeah, it was, that was actually the pivot point for me was, there was just all this talk of like, “You know, there's no way that this person's going to win and this person's going to prevail.” And, I just, kind of needed to sit back. And I told myself, like, “If, if this doesn't happen, if there is no shift, I need to leave, like, I, not, need to leave, but I need to shift my, where my focus is.” And I gave myself that time to say, “If there, if there isn't any change that really happens during this election, whoever comes in office, I am going to radically let go of everything that I believed to be true within the movement, within the community, the beliefs, or whatever.” And so, after the election, I decided to walk away completely. I got out of all the groups. Just let, the people I did connect with, let them know that I no longer wanted to talk about it and to please no longer send any videos or posts, that I was focusing on my mental health. Some of them were very shocked and, like, worried, but then some of them were like, “I understand. Like, this is a lot for one person to really internalize and try to, like, figure out all the pieces.” But, I also realized like, I was, I wasn't doing okay mentally. Just how I was showing up as myself and as someone in my family, I just, I had the awareness that it was, it was affecting my, my inner circle. And I wanted, I wanted that to change.
Owlia: And so, she left QAnon and broke up with her boyfriend. However, she knew that she had to do much more.
Smith: I took a break on the social media platforms and off the Internet. I turned off the news completely. And, I actually signed up to be a yoga teacher, and I did a yoga teacher training course that kept my focus on something that I felt was healthy for my mind and for my body. It helped me move the energy, so that's something that I focused on. But then, I also really focused on my family, the people closest to me that I'm very close to and very much love.
Owlia: It was not an easy path, and she knew it.
Smith: For, for someone that has grown up, that has gone through some difficult things, I didn't see it as really being difficult. I really just saw it as, “This is what needs to happen to have a different outcome.” I mean, obviously, I had to end my relationship with that person that I was with and it was very difficult for both of us because we both very much cared for one another outside of our beliefs. And it was something that he wasn't able to leave or be able to, and it just wasn't going to align with where I wanted my life to go, so, I'd say the difficult things for me was I had to part with the relationship that I, at the time, felt close to. My family had to go through a transition of change again, which is not always easy for people. And I really had to just shift my awareness of where I was going. It was no longer going to be a part of, again, the beliefs and anything, anybody that leaves a religion or leaves, breaks up in a relationship, I think every human on this earth can say that change can be difficult, what, regardless of what it is.
Owlia: She had to walk through fire to get to the sun. And after all her hard work and journey, how does she feel today?
Smith: Really good. I mean, at the beginning, it was challenging. I had challenges, but I feel like I'm really grateful for the experience because it actually has helped me become who I am today, which is I have the ability to be more discerning and less naive about things. So I appreciate what it's taught me, and I also appreciate what it's done for me, which is I've gotten closer to myself. I know myself more now than I ever have. I am able to say what is for me and what isn't without really getting wrapped up in fear of missing out or if I just don't know enough, like, I just feel very confident in who I am today, which I'm really grateful for.
Owlia: Ceally is now a successful entrepreneur and a spiritual business consultant. Her experiences in QAnon helped mold her for better and worse into the person she is today, and she does not regret going through it.
Smith: I don't have any hard feelings towards it. I don't have any hard feelings towards anybody that I've met through it or how I got connected to it. I, very much, am grateful for the things that I've learned and the things that I've experienced as a, as a human. Like I said, I'm really in a great place mentally. But again, I focused heavily on that when I, when I decided to shift my awareness, was to focus on me and focus on my family.
Owlia: Indeed, she believes QAnon helped her become a better businessperson and entrepreneur.
Smith: I would say yes. Interestingly enough, I would say yes in the sense that it showed me what to really pay attention to versus not. They're saying that where you put your energy or your focus is that's what will grow. So yeah, I would say that QAnon did make me a better entrepreneur in the sense that it showed me what not to put my focus on. It showed me what not to spend my time investing in.
Owlia: Through her struggles, she knew others who needed help to get where they needed to go. Once she gained her confidence and voice, she decided to use it and help others.
Smith: You know, I initially came into this, wanting to really help people focus on themselves, and to not make it about the movement or what they're fighting for, but really turn that energy and fight for themselves of, "What is this really doing for you? Is this really strengthening you and your relationships in the most important things to you in your life? Is it giving you a sense of, you know, freedom that you talk about so much?" And, I also met several people coming out of QAnon that, unfortunately, are no longer with us today because the mental state that they were in, they felt like they needed to take their own life. So, I personally felt that some people don't have the resources that I do. I realize that I am in a category that a lot of people are not in, which is, my businesses have been very successful. I have reached a platform in my businesses that a big, large community of people in business can't say that they've been able to reach. So, I have been able to fund my journey of getting back to a healthier mental state. And so, I really felt like it was something that I needed to not just do for myself to clear the air because I have had some backlash from people in my community of the beliefs that I have publicly have stated in the past and my family. And then, I did also realize from the people that I've connected with that have had more of a struggle of getting out of it mentally that I wanted to help those people. I wanted to help the people that said, "How do I do this?" And not necessarily give them the blueprint of exactly how I did it, but just encourage them that they have the ability to know that they can do it because I've done it. So sometimes, we can't be our own reason. Sometimes we have to be fighting for something else for us to choose it, and I realize that.
Owlia: Through it all, Ceally fought to be free. To live life on her terms and enjoy her time with friends and family.
Smith: Personally, I don't, I don't have any regrets to anything. I think where I'm at today is because of those experiences and those events. If I could go back, it would be to tell myself, “You're right where you're supposed to be. And I love you.”
Owlia: And now, some final thoughts. The process of going through all the information and breaking it down has been a story of informing, manipulation, and pain, but I found one thing through this process that was unexpected– faith. Faith in people, in a broken system that can be strengthened, in working together. Will we ever get to a time when podcasts like these are no longer necessary? Even if we put in the work, probably not any time soon. Can we get there? With a bit of luck and faith, I hope so. Come and dream with me.
