UNBIASED - LAW: Fear Mongering: Scared People Don't Listen So Why Are We Using This Tactic?

Episode Date: July 20, 2022

On this episode of "jordan is my lawyer", Jordan focuses on fear mongering in the media. She not only talks about the dangerous implications of fear mongering, but debunks and explains some of the misleading headlines currently out there. She breaks down her list of the top four misrepresentations on social media and explains why you shouldn't fall for them. The conversation closes with Jordan discussing why you should always view news headlines like your favorite cake. It sounds crazy, but makes complete sense. And, as always, she leaves bias out of it. She simply sticks to the facts. Because after all, you can't argue facts. *For links to resources, topics, and articles discussed in this episode, please visit Jordan's YouTube channel (jordan is my lawyer). All links can be found in the description of Episode 3.*  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only.

Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Connex Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. You are listening to the Jordan is My Law podcast. This is your host Jordan and I give

you the legal analysis you've been waiting for. Here's the deal. I don't care about your political views, but I do ask that you listen to the facts, have an open mind and think for yourselves. Deal? Oh, and one last thing. I'm not actually a lawyer. Welcome back to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast. I had an interesting experience this week on TikTok which inspired the main topic of this episode which is fear-mongering. You either love it or you hate it. If you don't know what it is it's that tactic the scare tactic that the news outlets use to grab your attention and honestly it's not even the news outlets it's that tactic, the scare tactic that the news outlets use to grab your attention. And honestly, it's not even the news outlets. It's really like anyone these days. They know that that's what gets the views. That's what gets the likes. So they scare you purposely. And if you

follow me on TikTok, you've heard me mention my disdain for this reporting tactic once or twice, I absolutely cannot stand it. Because the reality is scared people don't listen. Think about a time when you've been scared or anxious. In those moments, do you really want to digest more of the exact thing that's causing the fear and anxiety? Of course not. I mean, if you're anything like me, the answer is no. That's a hard no. I want to get as far away from that thing as possible and just be able to breathe it out. For this very reason, we should be talking about the news in a calm, educational manner, especially given the nature of the news these days and like things that are happening in the world right now, it can be so controversial and that's why it's critical to talk about it with a calm tone and just educate. Fear-mongering causes people to shut down. It does the exact opposite of opening

up a conversation. Throughout this episode, I'm going to discuss the dangerous implications of fear-mongering, but I'm going to add to that and I'm going to take some of these headlines that look a bit scary and teach you guys about the topic so you can be well-informed as to what's actually going on versus what the headline says is going on. And hopefully with that, you guys will be able to spot these scare tactics in the future. I'm also going to talk about an experience I had on TikTok this week with a certain politician and discuss four of the craziest social media rumors I heard this week and why you should not believe them. We'll wrap up the conversation talking about why you should always view news headlines

like a delicious three-layer cake. And that sounds crazy, but I promise it'll make sense. But first, I want to tell you guys about an interesting conversation I had with a friend recently. She gave me some really helpful constructive criticism that I think you guys will really appreciate. It'll not only improve this show as a whole, but give you guys another added benefit that you'll get from listening to me that you wouldn't otherwise get from listening to the news. So I made a new friend on TikTok who is also a lawyer, but in New York City. By the way, my fiance thinks it's hilarious that I have so many TikTok friends. I genuinely have more friends on TikTok than I have in real life. But I think it's really cool because you get to

choose who your friends are on TikTok because like, I mean, not that you can't in real life, but TikTok gives you such an inside look, I feel like, into people's lives. And you can be like, oh yeah, this person like has this in common with me and whatever. I think it's really cool that we can connect with people on social media. But I got the chance to talk to her for about 45 minutes the other day. We talked about the practice of law, content creation, life paths, and podcasts. And she was really happy about me starting a podcast and thought it was a great idea. I told her that I was actually uploading my next episode, which is the one I last posted about Roe versus Wade and abortion rights the the following morning and that if she had time to listen to it that I would love her feedback. Guys, I kid you

not, the next morning around 10 30 a.m. she sent me a text with 10 different feedback points. The fact that she not only took the time to listen but then took the time to write out all of her thoughts meant so much to me. Her first point was that it's totally possible for me to talk about issues in an unbiased way, but at the same time give you guys something other than the facts to think about. So as an example, in my last episode, I discussed how the Supreme Court in Dobbs distinguished abortion rights from the right to obtain contraceptives and the right to same-sex marriage. Specifically, the Supreme Court said, quote, abortion posed the critical moral question of taking another human life, whereas gay marriage and contraception do not. So yes, while this is an objective fact that I can share with you guys

without expressing my own opinion on the matter, I can also take it one step further and pose a question to you guys about that concept to get you thinking about the issue in a deeper light. For example, I could ask you, do you think it's the court's job to take morality into consideration or is the court's role to simply decide matters of law and not factor in morality? Doing this wouldn't require me to push a personal opinion per se or express any sort of partiality, but rather it'll set you guys up to be able to critically think about the issue, which is key to forming your own opinions, which you guys know I'm big on. So in saying that, I think I'm going to start incorporating some critical thinking questions. Actually, I know I'm going to start incorporating

some critical thinking questions just to give you guys another added benefit that you won't otherwise get from the media because no one else does that. They just tell you like how you should be thinking, right? So this episode is where I'm going to start does that. They just tell you like how you should be thinking, right? So this episode is where I'm going to start doing that and you'll see when I talk about certain topics, I'll end it by posing some questions to you guys just to get you guys thinking about it. The other suggestion that she had was providing you guys with resources because if you listen to my intro episode, I talked about how it frustrates me to no end that credible information is so inaccessible. And how part of the reason I want to do what I'm

doing is because if I had never gone to law school, I too would be so lost when it comes to researching. Researching isn't something that's easy to learn. Researching is a skill that you have to kind of practice, like you have to take the time to learn to do. And I know we don't all have that time. So I want to not only be able to educate you for free, but also provide you with links to resources where you can actually research these things for yourself as well. Things like laws, not just abortion laws either, but whenever I discuss a law generally, I would like you guys to be able to see that law I'm referring to, Supreme Court opinions, links to interviews I've watched, things like that. Like literally the places that I get my

information to share with you, I want you to be able to put your own eyes on. I have to be able to figure out whether I can link these things in my podcast descriptions. I think there's a character limit on that. So I may have to put them like on my YouTube videos or something for now until I get my website up and running. But regardless, I'm going to make it happen for you guys because I think that's really important and it was such a great suggestion that she made. So yeah, I was just really thankful for her and that

she took the time to give me those pieces of advice because without her, I probably wouldn't have thought of that stuff on my own and I think both of those things will really, really help you guys. So let's jump into fear-mongering. Some of you guys know that I typically start my TikToks by saying, please don't believe everything you hear on social media. Social media can be a very dangerous place when it comes to spreading misinformation because you have people that quite literally have no background in the law, but yet are explaining what particular laws mean and why you should be scared of them. Then you have people that do have backgrounds in the law, such as politicians, but their goal is to quite literally scare you into voting for them. So unfortunately for us, it's these videos

and these articles that get the views. The scare tactics work and these people know that. Just the other day, I came across a woman running for Democratic office in Missouri. If you don't know, Missouri has some of the strictest abortion laws and has a far-right leaning government. In this particular video that she made, she said that she was, quote, enraged because pregnant women in Missouri don't have a right to get divorced. And that it doesn't matter if the woman is in an abusive relationship. If the woman is pregnant, she has no right to leave her abusive husband.

Now, look, I get where she was going with that first statement about pregnant women not being able to get divorced because essentially what she was trying to say is that because Roe was overturned, Missouri now bans abortions outright, whereas previously when Roe was still in effect, you could get an abortion in Missouri up until 24 weeks. So now one of the implications of Roe being overturned and abortions being banned is that you no longer have an option when you file for divorce to have an abortion in order to expedite the divorce process. Because it is true that Missouri has a rule that if you file for divorce, the divorce can't be finalized until the child is born and custody issues can be decided.

And we'll get into that in a minute. But my point is, is that she left out critical facts that would lessen the fear. But instead, she was actually trying to increase the fear in order to get people scared and to get people voting for her. So I responded to her video and I laid out some important pieces of information that was purposely left out of her video. So I'm first going to tell you what my issues are with her video and also explain why that rule exists. But let me just go on the record and say that it's my issue with her isn't her sharing the implications of the row reversal because that's very important. My issue is with

how she presented the implications. As an aside, her video had 1.6 million views the last time I checked. Mine had 134,000. So you have just about a million and a half people who saw her video and didn't get the context they deserved in my video. And mind you, I checked her video again right before I started recording just to see where her views were at and her video was deleted. So maybe she realized scaring her potential voters wasn't the best way to go. Nonetheless, these are my issues. So first of all, her saying that she was quote unquote enraged makes it seem as if this is a new rule. This rule has been in effect since long before Roe was overturned. In fact, many states employ this same rule. The reason the rule is in place is because if a woman files for divorce or a man files for divorce and the woman

is pregnant, the court must determine custody of the child before a divorce decree can be finalized. The Missouri courts say that custody cannot be determined until the child is born, which means that the divorce cannot be finalized until that time. Keep in mind that all other dissolution proceedings can proceed as normal. Division of property, division of assets, but the custody issue, that has to wait until the woman is no longer pregnant. Furthermore, her saying a pregnant woman in Missouri has no right to leave her abusive husband is not only incredibly misleading, but dangerous. A pregnant woman in Missouri, let me be clear, can most definitely leave her abusive husband. Not only can she physically leave, but she can also file for divorce as well as obtain a restraining order

against her abuser. This is critical information that should have been included in her video if she was going to bring abuse into it. Once she turned that video into a video about victims of abuse, she should have clarified that these victims can leave their husbands, can file for divorce, can obtain a restraining order, but their divorce will not be finalized until the woman is no longer pregnant. That is what she should have said. Her leaving out this information not only makes me angry, but it makes me incredibly sad because I'm sure there is some pregnant woman in Missouri that's in an incredibly unfortunate abusive situation that heard that politician's

video and thinks that she actually lacks the right to leave her abuser. Can you imagine a woman hearing that video and genuinely thinking she can't leave because the law says so? It's obvious that this politician's tactic was to scare the people of Missouri into voting for her. But I don't know. It doesn't sit well with me. And you guys know I don't express my opinions often, but I can confidently say that that politician should be ashamed of herself. And the fact that all politicians act in a similar manner is not an excuse. These tactics need to change. I also have an issue with the fact that she failed to mention that this rule is not abnormal. In fact,

multiple other states will not finalize a divorce until custody issues are sorted. She also failed to mention that the average contested divorce, meaning a divorce that is not necessarily amicable, each side has their own issues that they need to figure out in court, takes 12 months. The average. That's longer than a full-term pregnancy. And while it's true that an uncontested divorce can take as little as three months, up to 24 months, there's really no limit on how much time it can take, but hear me out. You'd be hard-pressed to find an abuser who lets his victim walk uncontested. So when you're looking at that statistic that the average contested divorce takes 12 months longer than a full-term pregnancy, the rule isn't that crazy. And that's not me saying I don't sympathize, but like all of this information should have been included in this woman's video.

All of these facts should have been included to lessen the fear. She could have gotten her point across without scaring her potential voters. So with this in mind, let me set forth some ideas, no opinions, just conversation starters to get you thinking about this issue on a deeper level. Missouri says life begins at conception for purposes of abortion laws. Yet, when it comes to divorce, custody issues can't be decided until the child is born. Should there be a level playing field here? On the flip side of that, suppose playing fields were leveled. The court could determine custody issues upon conception, and divorces could potentially be finalized sooner than they otherwise would. Could there be potential issues regarding wasted time, money, and court resources should the woman lose the baby prior to birth but after custody issues were decided?

Or is that a risk the court should be willing to take in order to treat pregnancy and unborn children equally across the board? Something to think about. When I came across this politician's video, it affirmed my belief that there is way too much misinformation and fear being instilled across all social media platforms. I compiled a list of the four craziest social media rumors I've heard in the last two weeks. And we're going to either debunk each one or explain what they actually mean and what maybe should have been said instead. And I'm doing this so you guys can pinpoint these scare tactics in the future

and realize that there's always more to the story. Obviously, coming in at number one, we have to include the statement that pregnant women in Missouri do not have a right to leave their husbands. We obviously know now that this is false. We know what this message should be instead. We know that pregnant women can, in fact, physically leave their abuser if they are able to do so. We know that pregnant women can, in fact, physically leave their abuser if they are able to do so. We know that pregnant women can file for divorce against their abuser. And we know that pregnant women can obtain a restraining order against their abuser. However, a pregnant couple cannot finalize their divorce until their child is born.

Coming in at number two, quote, women will be required to take a pregnancy test before leaving their state, end quote. This is also false. It's important to remember when listening to all of this misinformation that we haven't lost our right to privacy. And this can be a little bit confusing because there were discussions about the right to privacy in all abortion cases. Like, Roe versus Wade talked about the right to privacy. That's what the abortion right was based on. Dobbs versus Jackson Women's Health Organization discussed privacy. Planned Parenthood versus Casey discussed privacy. But the right to privacy was not overturned. The right to abortion was overturned. In fact, the court reiterated the right to privacy in the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe versus Wade. And they reiterated the fact that the right to privacy does in fact exist, but that the right to abortion

just doesn't fall within that right to privacy. And if you listen to my second episode, I even discuss how after Roe versus Wade was originally decided in 1973, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was a former liberal Supreme Court justice, argued that the right to privacy argument probably wasn't the best argument for abortion, and that in her view, it probably should have been argued as an equal protection issue instead. So the controversy surrounding abortion rights as a privacy right has always been present, but just because the right to abortion is gone doesn't mean that the right to privacy is also gone. Now, obviously, if one day we do lose our privacy right, our country will look a whole lot different than it does now.

Not only for women, but for literally every single person in the United States. You have to remember our privacy right protects so many things. The ability for the government to track your cell phones, the right for individuals to possess and watch pornography, a family to choose their own living situations, the right to obtain contraceptives, and so many other rights that we have. Now you're probably like, okay, now why are you talking about the right to privacy? Well, requiring a woman to take a pregnancy test at a state's border would be a complete invasion of privacy. Not to mention, think about the feasibility of that. A pregnancy test at the airport before you get on your flight? Border patrol at each borderline making you pee in a cup? Assume for argument purposes that the

government did implement a law that said all women must take a pregnancy test before leaving the state. And assume that the pregnancy test came back positive. How would the government prove that the pregnant woman's intent was to go get an abortion? So now essentially you're looking at the state banning travel for all pregnant women just in case their intent is to go get an abortion. So now pregnant women can't travel? This sounds like an equal protection issue to me, right? The equal protection clause is what says you can't grant certain rights to a certain class of people and not those same rights to another class of people. So now you're saying that, well, pregnant women can't travel, but non-pregnant

women can. I don't think so. Coming in at number three, quote, women should avoid telling their providers when their last period was because if a physician suspects pregnancy, the provider is required to report it to the state and the state can track you. First of all, the woman who made this claim is a financial accountant and makes TikToks about finances. She has no background in the law. This statement is not only incorrect, but it's a dangerous claim to make. Many, so many women go see their providers because of medical conditions specifically related to not getting their periods. Imagine if a woman truly felt

that they couldn't discuss their period with their doctors. I'm here to tell you that I've reviewed the reporting requirements of the strictest of abortion statutes, and I can assure you that they do not require the physician to report suspected pregnancy. What they do require is that a physician reports when an abortion is conducted and the medical reasons for doing so, but by no means is a physician required to report when they think that their patient may be pregnant. But just for fun, let's talk about the second part of this woman's claim. The state can track you? How? Is your physician implanting a chip into your body during your

appointment because they think you might be pregnant? Definitely not. And even if so, you could most definitely say no, you don't want a chip implanted in your body, but that's not happening. Or is there a government agent outside of the doctor's office placing a tag on your car? I mean, some of these things, you guys, you really just got to stop and think, okay, how realistic is this? And I get it. Without a background in the law, it might be difficult to wonder how far a state or federal government is allowed to go in certain situations because sometimes it seems like they're allowed to go pretty far. But please just have faith that our entire nation's history and precedent isn't going down the trash chute in one fell swoop. Yes, the right to abortion was taken away and was overturned,

but by no means does that mean that we no longer have any rights anymore. So just keep that in mind. Coming in at number four, quote, the Supreme Court ruled that police no longer have to read you your Miranda warnings, end quote. This is, in fact, not what happened. Even the ACLU, who litigated the original Miranda case in 1966, wrote an article on the new Supreme Court ruling, and their headline read, Supreme Court ruling rejects the promise of Miranda rights. Now, I'm going to tell you what this case was about, and you decide for yourself whether that headline is accurate. Before we get into the facts, though, this is what you need to know. Miranda warnings are those statements read to you prior to an interrogation by the police.

You might have heard them on an episode of Cops. It goes like this. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to the presence of an attorney, and if you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you prior to questioning. Miranda can be a bit difficult to understand at times, so I'm going to try to make this as easy as possible. So these Miranda warnings need to be given to you before you're interrogated. The purpose of them is to put you on notice that anything you say can be used against you and will be used against you in the court of law and to put you on notice that you are entitled to

an attorney. So let's say you are arrested. Let's say the cops show up, they put the handcuffs on you, but they haven't really asked you anything yet. You're sitting in the cop car on the way to the police station and you say, I killed the guy. That is a spontaneous utterance by you and that does not count because the police were not questioning you. They weren't asking you anything. It's not until they ask you something and interrogate you that they have to give you these Miranda warnings. So that's an exception to the rule if you say something without being prompted. Also, if they give you your Miranda warnings and you thereafter say something incriminating, that can also be used against you at your criminal trial because they gave you your warning, they told you that that could be used against you, and you still said it

anyway. This is why defendants get an attorney and why their attorneys tell them don't say anything because of this, right? Now on the flip side of that, let's say you get arrested, you get driven to the station, you're sitting in this room and a cop comes in and they're asking you questions. And at no point do they give you your Miranda warnings. And they're asking you what happened, did you do it, yada yada, and you say, yeah, I did it. That statement is inadmissible at your criminal trial because you were never given your Miranda warnings. Using that statement at trial would be a violation of your Fifth Amendment right, which protects against self-incrimination. So let's talk about what happened in this case. So in June, the Supreme

Court ruled on a case called Vega v. Tecko. Tecko was a certified nursing assistant in California. He was accused of molesting a patient. He was interrogated by an LA County Sheriff's deputy, and apparently this deputy not only denied Tecko's request to speak to a lawyer, but refused to let him leave the room, allegedly called him a racial slur at one point, and eventually got Tecko to sign a written confession, which was used against him at trial over his objection. He was never given his Miranda warnings. Tecko, the defendant, was acquitted of his charges because of this. This is a Fifth Amendment violation. After his acquittal, Tecko sued the deputy who questioned him for civil liability under Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code, which is a federal law that allows a person to sue a government actor when that government actor deprives a person of any rights, privileges,

or immunities secured by the Constitution and the laws. Now, you'll hear me refer to this law as Section 1983. That's what I'm talking about when you hear that. Section 1983 is often used to claim the government acted in an unconstitutional manner and that the injured party should be compensated with money because of it. In the Tecko case, the question was whether the Miranda warnings constituted a constitutional right or federal law in which an officer can be held civilly liable for violating. The Supreme Court held that while a defendant can suppress un-Mirandai statements at trial, a defendant cannot thereafter sue the officer for civil liability. And keep in mind, this liability is not criminal charges,

like the officer would not be held criminally liable. It's just civil liability, so money. The Supreme Court's holding did not change anything about officers still having to read you your Miranda warnings. What it did was say that if you're not read your Miranda warnings and an un-Miranda statement is used against you at trial, you cannot thereafter sue the officer. The court's reasoning was that Miranda warnings are neither a right granted by the Constitution nor a federal law. Rather, they're a protection put in place to avoid a violation of a constitutional right, that being your Fifth Amendment. And because Miranda warnings are merely a safeguard or a protection, a government actor cannot be held civilly liable for failing to read Miranda

warnings and later using un-Mirandai statements against the defendant. So in other words, what the court is saying is that Miranda warnings are not a constitutional right, nor are they protected by federal law. Instead, Miranda warnings are a protection to prevent the violation of a constitutional right. Because of this, the court says an officer can't be held civilly liable under Section 1983 because Section 1983 specifically pertains to violations of constitutional rights or federal law. And because the Supreme Court is deeming Miranda warnings as a mere protection of a constitutional right and not a constitutional right itself, officers cannot be liable under this section. Now notice that section 1983 also allows for a

cause of action when a person is deprived of not only a constitutional right but also a federal law. In determining whether Miranda constituted a federal law for purposes of section 1983, the court said that allowing the victim of a Miranda violation to sue a police law for purposes of Section 1983. The court said that allowing the victim of a Miranda violation to sue a police officer for damages under Section 1983 would have little additional deterrent value. The Supreme Court stated, a judicially crafted prophylactic rule should apply only where its benefits outweigh its costs. And here, while the benefits of permitting the assertion of Miranda claims under Section 1983 would be slight, the cost would be substantial. The court goes on to say, Miranda rests on a pragmatic judgment about what is needed to stop the violation at trial of the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination.

That prophylactic purpose is served by the suppression at trial of statements obtained in violation of Miranda, and that allowing the victim of a Miranda violation to sue a police officer for damages under Section 1983 would have little additional deterrent value, and permitting such claims would cause many problems. So now I pose the question to you. Do you agree with the court that permitting victims of a Miranda violation to sue a police officer would have little additional deterrent value going forward? In other words, do you think that if officers knew they could be held civilly liable for failing to Mirandize or using un-Mirandize statements against a defendant at trial, they would be more proactive in either reading defendants their Miranda warnings or

ensuring un-Mirandize statements don't get admitted into trial? Moreover, do you agree with the court's conclusion that Miranda warnings are a mere protection against a violation of a constitutional right and therefore cannot be held to the same standard as the constitutional right itself? Suppose you agree with the court's conclusion that Miranda warnings are a mere protection against a violation of a constitutional right and therefore cannot be held to the same standard as the constitutional right itself. Let's take it one step further just for fun. Do you think that the standard should change depending on whether the defendant is found guilty because of an un-Mirandai statement being used against him or her? In the Tecko case, the defendant was acquitted, but say in another case the defendant is found guilty and sentenced. Do you think then the defendant should have a cause of action under Section 1983? So when I pose these questions to you, my goal is to get you thinking.

These questions are meant to make you think. So if the answers don't come to you right away, that's okay. And that's actually preferred. Because what that means is that you're really trying to think critically about the issue and perhaps you don't know enough. Perhaps you need to go and research more to really form your own opinion on the matter. And that is my goal here. My goal is to incentivize you guys to research and spark your interest in looking into these issues more because although I can

you know try to teach you as much as I can in this in this 40 minute podcast or 30 minute podcast or whatever it is I it's not enough time to really get you all of the information you need and depending on what particular questions you have about a topic you can go tailor your research to those specific issues. So when I ask you these questions, if the answers don't come to you right away, that is more than okay. And like I said, that's actually preferred because that means that you're thinking critically and that you have an open mind and that yes, you want to form your own opinions, but you're thinking about it on a deeper level. Okay, so let's close up this

conversation by bringing this full circle and talking about why you should always view news headlines as a delicious three-layer cake. And like I said, you're going to say, Jordan, that sounds crazy, but by the end of this, you're going to get it. So think of your favorite cake. Ideally, it would have two layers or more. For purposes of this analogy, we're going to talk about the cake my mom just recently made for my brother's birthday. It was amazing. It was two layers of white cake. The cake layers themselves had chocolate chips in them.

The middle layer was a layer of peanut butter Oreo frosting, and the outside of the cake was frosted with vanilla buttercream frosting, chocolate ganache dripping down the sides of the cake, more vanilla buttercream dolloped on top, and chocolate chips on top of the buttercream dolloped on top and chocolate chips on top of the buttercream. Like when I tell you this cake was incredible, it was incredible. But the outside of the cake is what really caught the eye. And this is almost always the case, right? The top layer is typically going to be the most appealing because that's what everyone sees. This is what you take pictures of and you share with your family and friends and you're like, look at this amazing freaking cake I had. But it's not until you cut the cake open

and you see what's inside that you really start to get a feeling for what the cake is all about. From the outside, my mom's cake looked like just a vanilla cake with chocolate chips. I never would have guessed that there was peanut butter oreo frosting inside and then it's not until you take your first bite that you're like okay so this is what the cake is all about i've tasted it now it all makes sense i finally get it and that's when you can go talk to your friends and family tell them all about the cake so the top top layer of the cake, the outside of the cake, is the news headline, guys. That's what captures your attention. That's what you take pictures of. That's what you screenshot. That is what makes you either want to immediately curl up in a ball or run to your

family and friends and talk about it. Okay, so just as an example, let's look at the ACLU headlines in regards to that Miranda case that we just talked about. The headline said, Supreme Court ruling rejects the promise of Miranda rights. You read or hear that headline and you're like, what do you mean we no longer have to be read Miranda warnings? What's going on in this country? This is the point at which you need to cut the cake because you actually have no idea what the headline is truly talking about until you read the substance of the article. So you open the article and you see that the ACLU was actually involved in this lawsuit representing the

defendant and the defendant lost. So now you're like, okay, now it's starting to make a bit more sense. Now I see why the headline was kind of skewed the way it was. You see which side the ACLU stands on, and now there's some context behind the misleading nature of the article, right? But wait, because you haven't tasted the cake yet. Now is when you want to look into other sources and do some research yourself. Perhaps reading the Supreme Court opinion itself is the best place to start because it's not until you do this that you can fully understand what happened. It's not until you hear the facts from either multiple independent sources or the source itself that you can fully understand all aspects of the story and you can run to your

family and friends and talk about it and tell them all about it. So the next time you hear a headline I want you to think of your favorite three-layer cake. Realize that there is always more to a story than what meets the eyes or ears and And that in order to know enough about the cake to be able to brag about it to your friends, family, even followers on social media, you have to cut it open and taste it. You have to do the research. The headline itself isn't enough. One article isn't enough. Throughout this episode, we cleared up a lot, and hopefully you learned a lot. My hope is that you digest this new knowledge and you take an interest into looking into the issues that we discussed a bit further. And from there,

open up a calm, informative conversation with people you know about these issues. Because remember, scared people don't listen. I truly hope you guys enjoyed this episode. If you did, please, please, please leave me a review so more people can hear about my podcast and they too can have the opportunity to learn about topics without the opinions and bias. As always, thank you for being here. I'll talk to you guys soon.