QAA Podcast - Trickle Down Episode 20: Retrospective (Sample)

Episode Date: March 15, 2024

The last episode of this season of Trickle Down. So we’re going to do a self-indulgent one. In this episode we discuss common criticisms of “anti-disinformation” reporting, the topics Travis wound up passing on, and listener stories. You had a lot to say about the Thomas Midgley Jr. series. Theme by Nick Sena (https://nicksenamusic.com). Additional music by Pontus Berghe. Editing by Corey Klotz. Subscribe for $5 a month to get an extra episode of QAA every week + access to our archive of premium episodes and ongoing series like PERVERTS, Manclan, and The Spectral Voyager: www.patreon.com/qanonanonymous

I'm Travis View, and this is Trickledown, a podcast about what happens when bad ideas flow from the top. With me are Julian Field and Jake Rock Katanski. Episode 20. Retrospective. This is the last episode of this season, Trickle Down. So for this one, I'm going to ask you, dear listener, to permit me a self-indulgent one. So instead of covering a single topic like I usually do, I'm going to talk a bit about like the broad reason why I want to do a series about misinformation, disinformation that comes from high authority sources. And I'm going to talk about how I chose topics I did cover and also talk about like the topics I didn't cover and sort of like empty the chamber there.

And we're also going to do a few fascinating listener stories, which I really enjoy. I put out a call for listener stories on Twitter and in our Discord. We got some good ones. You're emptying the chamber pot? I'm entering the chamber pot. Yeah, that's what I'm doing. Yeah, once you fire that final bullet, there will be no misinformation left in the world. And our jobs will ostensibly be done.

Oh, good. Good. It's hoping to retire. Can't wait to discuss Travis View's secretly anti-capitalist series. You know, yeah. So there's this criticism you sometimes hear about like anti-misinformation or like disinformation reporting, which is that it's not really intended to identify falsehoods or, you know, find the negative impacts of falsehoods as are spread throughout the internet, but rather,

the criticism goes, that is designed to enforce a particular narrative, a narrative that happens to align with the interests of people who already have a lot of money, power, and influence. And people who study or report on disinformation aren't true skeptics, but rather they're just a winning or unwitting foot soldiers of the scientific establishment or the U.S. State Department or perhaps even just the interests of capital generally. A good representation of this kind of criticism came from Glenn Greenwald in this February 29th tweet. He said the self-proclaimed anti-disinformation industry was created by Western intelligence agencies and a small handful of neoliberal billionaires after the 2016 election.

It had and still has only one actual purpose to justify political censorship of the internet. To which Elon Musk responded, yeah, it's a scam. Okay, this is so awesome because Glenn is posting such, a fucking hamburger of crap. There's like an MSNBC image posted by the New York Post that is commenting on it. And Stephen Miller

has quote tweeted that and Glenn has screencapped everything I've just described and then of course Elon Musk is answering it. Absolute bog filled with the old stumps of like these various players. They all mean poorly. Nothing is in good faith.

And yeah, it's filtered through enough, like, sludge to make it seem like he's making some kind of credible observation. And listen, I kind of get it. I think it is, like, I'm sure, Travis, you're going to, you know, obviously disagree with Glenn here and all of that. But I understand if, like, you squinted and you kind of, like, made out a blurry impression of anti-disinformation, you could say, yeah, politicact. You could say, like, the Pinocchio system, like all this kind of. establishment like debunking thing is essentially designed to focus on essentially enemies of these establishments right so it's not necessarily the approach that is wrong it's the fact that these people have then taken these concepts like conspiracy theories or disinformation and weaponized

it for their own purposes where they'll they'll selectively cover specific things and so by omission they aren't really being fully honest or trying to provide a bigger picture. They are unwittingly sometimes obscuring the larger picture of what the power structures are. Now, please don't say that I agree with Glenn Greenwald or Stephen Miller or the New York Post or Elon Musk. I don't. No, no, no. I just wanted to say also it's worth mentioning that it does bring up this good question of like, who are the fact or arbiters? You know what I mean? If somebody, you know, purports to be like, we are pure anti-disinformation, this is what we do. It's like, well, who's checking them? I understand that when anything is left to the hands of human

beings, we make mistakes, you know, there is no, there is no institution, there is no one person who is 100% reliable every single time and you can always look to them and know the exact facts of any situation. So not to mention the idea that facts themselves, truth is actually like a hotly debated philosophical question, the possibility of absolute. truth, the idea of an objective reality. These are all up for debate in many different fields of study. But having said that, you know, I think Travis is about to make a very good point that we should probably let him make. So, I mean, here is the thing. It's like, I'm on board with it. I think this particular criticism of anti-disinformation is wrong, but I see where it's coming from.

Like I often talk about, like I was introduced to this topic in the early aughts during the battle over intelligent design creationism and evolution in public schools. And in that battle, on one side, there was, like, the humble scientists working in universities and the even more humble science teachers working in these underfunded schools. And on the other side, there were people being funded by billionaires and Christian nationalists through the Discovery Institute and intelligent design creationism, even had the backing of President George W. Bush and senators. So the teaching of evolution, it did have, like, scientific authority on the side, but it didn't

have like money or political power. So in that sense, it felt like evolution and skepticism like science was like, you know, the was on the righteous side of this underdog fight fighting up against a bigger power. I mean, so because of that, like I've always thought like the skeptical stance is something as personally empowering. Like it gives you like the tools and the license to reality test and question claims from any source, whether it comes from people with a lot of establishment backing or not. But I hear where this, the kind of criticism that Glenn Greenwald is like coming from. So a couple of years ago, when we were talking about like stretching our wings and trying out doing other side series about topics we're interested in, I thought it would be worthwhile to talk about the ways in which bad information, disinformation comes from sources that by all appearances have all the authority, have all the, you know, the money and even like, you know, the scientific backing and like all these things that are just totally, totally wrong because there are plenty of those kinds of examples to, um, talk about, but I mean, you're right. Those kinds of things usually aren't folded into the

broader conversation about disinformation and misinformation. Yeah, and sometimes it's just a question of focus, right? If you focus on one thing, then the focus is drawn away from another thing. And so it can be insidious. And I do understand that. So I also want to talk about, like, I guess my approach to working on the subject matter. So for about like seven years, like before I became a professional podcaster, I lived in North County, San Diego, and I worked in an office in downtown San Diego, and that meant that I had an hour-long commute, mostly on the 15 freeway, you know, both ways. And to make the commute more enjoyable, I listened to podcasts. And so that's about, you know, 10 hours worth of podcast content, you know, at least every week. And I listen

to a bunch of stuff, like super polished NPR-style podcast and chatty podcasts with people who were clearly we're recording on these shitty USB mics and stuff in between. Now, my favorite podcast experience was when the podcast episode ended just as I pulled into the parking garage. Because if ended like 15 minutes before, then I had like 15 minutes of driving, that's not really enough to start a new podcast. And if it was like halfway through the episode when I got to my destination, then I had to like mentally put a pin and was being discussed until I drove back home, which was

fine, which was not the best. But what I really loved was when I pulled into the first. garage just as the episode was ending and I felt like I learned something new or I got a new perspective and it stuck with me so much that I'd maybe like look up the experts who are interviewed on the podcast or I'd get some more general information about the subject matter and I just feel like my whole world got like a little bit bigger because of what I listened to all my commute and that way it's sort of like my favorite part of the podcast you know is after I stopped listening to it and it's just kind of like ruminating about the subject matter in my

head. And so that's basically what I'm usually trying to do when I make my own podcast. I'm trying to make something for me to have that kind of experience when I was, you know, back and forth commuting down in San Diego. But you never stuck to an hour with this series. What are you talking about? I well, no, it was an hour and a half. I was like, I mean, you know, I wanted to like, it was roughly, it was roughly. And also, also nowadays, people listen at like 1.5 speed. So, you know. Oh, yeah, that's true. That's true. We got those free set there. So that hour and a half becomes, you know, 55 minutes. That is insane to me because the fucking chirping voices

like drive me up the wall. Hey there, you've been listening to a sample clip of Trickled Down. This is a side project that I've been working on. It's a 10 episode series about misinformation and bad ideas that flow from high authority sources. I think it's fascinating and I mean, it's a way for, I guess, me to explore the way people who should know what they're talking about don't always actually. I'm not going to lie, uh, some of it's kind of a bumble.

But if you're anything like me, that's actually more of a reason to dive into the subject matter. Like with the premium episodes of Q&N anonymous, all the episodes of Trickled Down are available to people who support us through Patreon. Still the same five bucks a month. Double the extra content, same price that we've been doing since 2018. We are inflation-proof. Inflation-proof, inflation-proof. Pooley.