October 30, 2024 • 36 mins
Ever wondered how polished delivery can overshadow policy substance? We promise you'll learn how vice-presidential debates often favor soundbites and media-savvy appearances, potentially leading to public misconceptions. Brittany and Karen discuss the nuances of political communication, highlighting the importance of critical thinking and the role social media platforms like TikTok play in reshaping the voter landscape.
CONTINUING EDUCATION
- Read the full VP debate transcript from the Walz-Vance showdown
- Why the vice presidential debate was not what voters expected
- Social Platforms’ Changing Approaches To Political and News Content Could Sway Upcoming Elections
- Why Are Online Political Discussions So Toxic?
- VP Debate 2024 Cold Open - SNL (just for laughs!)
Stay With Us
- Watch and Subscribe to The E Word on YouTube.
- Follow Karen on LinkedIn and learn more at Colossal Work.
- Follow Brittany on LinkedIn and learn more at BND Consulting Group.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Hey Brittany, hi Karen.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
Welcome back.
Welcome back, yes, the E-word.
How are you?
Speaker 1 (00:08):
feeling I'm okay.
You know it's been a good dayand I'm hoping we hop into the
weekend with some relaxation.
Read a good book watch some TVshows chill out.
How about you?
Speaker 2 (00:24):
I'm going to do the same.
I'm going to do the same.
I'm going to do the same.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
There's a book that I am really excited to get into,
so yeah, okay, maybe what we'lldo one day is have little bonus
sessions, just start a bookreview.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Book review.
Can we add some shows in there?
Speaker 1 (00:47):
Let's add some shows in there too.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Add some shows in there too.
I have to say I am.
You know, we both love comics,and so I've been watching agatha
all along.
And we speak about equity andwe can make it work.
Speaker 1 (01:05):
We can make it work or not because people are very
serious all the time about thevery serious topic, so people
can see some of the unseriousstuff as well.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Exactly, we're very serious about our joy as well.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
There you go.
You have to balance that withthese hard topics.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
We do.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
So, we definitely do but we have a hard topic again
today, right?
I think so.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
I think so.
So we are at the time I mean,it's election season, right, yep
and we are dealing with thesedebates, these debates?
(01:49):
Now, as I understand it, thedebates are the candidates'
opportunities to detail theirplans, their prospective
policies and their vision forthe country.
And not only do we have thepresidential debates, we have
the vice presidential debates,and so this past week, I watched
the vice presidential debates,and so this past week, I watched
the vice presidential debates.
Did you?
I did Initial takeaways.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Well, on an unserious front.
Okay, it was far lessentertaining than the
presidential debate, I'll haveto say.
No cats or dogs, no cats or dogs, no cats or dogs Although that
(02:33):
was terrible, not reallyentertainment, but in general
right.
But you know, I guess in termsof content, like how you just
described what the debates arefor, I honestly think the format
is very difficult for that.
The format is really made forsoundbites or short high-level
overviews of policy, notnecessarily these deep dives
(02:54):
that when you listen to thereporters and pundits afterwards
they're really gunning for ortrying to extrapolate from the
conversation.
But when you're given twominutes on a topic like, you
know, immigration, how deep divecan you go?
What it does lend itself to,again, is those high level
(03:15):
takeaways.
But also, you know, people canmisconstrue the information.
People can misconstrue theinformation.
Some people can out and out lieabout the information and
because it's in these digestiblebites, it's actually hard to
fact check them in the moment.
(03:35):
And if you are a verywell-spoken person, some things
can actually seem to make sense.
But when you have to, you know,take a moment to digest and
think about it, then you realizethat there's a lot more to it
or the facts may have been wrongin some cases.
So it's a tricky format for me.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Interesting.
Interesting, know that.
Um, you talked about the, thesekind of sound bites, which I
think are fascinating because ifyou're really, if you do them
really well, you can beperceived to be much more
(04:20):
competent, right and capable,competent, right and capable in
your role.
Um, so, when I'm thinking back,one of the soundbites I recall
is you know, we were told therewould be no fact checking, and I
found that to be interesting.
(04:41):
Um, but I guess my initialimpression was that we had
someone that was a very polished, very experienced debater.
Yeah, we had someone whoclearly went to law school, he
went to Yale, he went to Yaleand someone who did not Right
and really struggled with thatformat to create these snackable
(05:09):
quips for us to take away andput in our pocket as proof
positive of truthfulness orability or competence or
anything like that.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
I agree with that.
I mean, that's what's reallytough, right, because also, you
had that one person who has beenon the media trail for a more
extended period of time has,like you said, that background
(05:45):
in training and I think one ofthe reporters used this as kind
of like a chameleon right Intheir ability to, you know, just
navigate any sort of objectionor contrary point of view with
more stealth than the othercandidate, right.
(06:07):
And so you know I've alwayskind of believed this to be true
that if you are an eloquentspeaker and writer, it doesn't
matter if you're wrong or youdon't know what you're talking
about.
It doesn't matter if you'rewrong or you don't know what
you're talking about, you willactually elevate faster than
(06:28):
someone who doesn't have thoseskills or the same level of
skills.
I think someone I forget whosaid this because I would credit
her right now but she said youcould be dumb as a box of rocks
if you can speak and write tosomeone, right, and it's true,
I'm not saying now, now that'sif you're dumb, but if you're
(06:51):
smart and can do those things.
And now you add some level ofI'm just going to say deceit
into that mix.
That can be mixed.
That can be missed by manypeople because of your eloquence
.
If you speak with confidenceand eloquence, people tend to
believe you, no matter whatyou're saying, even if it's
(07:13):
foolishness, right.
And so the Republican vicepresidential candidate had far
more superior skills in terms ofhis eloquence than the Democrat
VP.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
Right, and to your point about deceit, I think what
we're tasked with doing asvoters is really kind of leaning
into our existing biases tomatch the candidate up against
who we believe is more capable,competent, maybe even
(07:54):
trustworthy.
And I've just been thinkingabout how and whether you're
able to build trust in such ashort period of time Because, to
your point I would say, thevice presidential Republican
candidate performed quite wellduring the debate but has
(08:17):
struggled with more long formmedia engagements because there
seems to be once the veneer kindof wears off.
We're hearing things that seemto be a little bit strange but
certainly inauthentic, whetherit's admitting to having rented
(08:40):
a dog because it makes them seemmore likable or approachable to
ordering a donut Right.
To yeah, things that.
Or childcare, right, there's aton of talk about women's
(09:01):
reproductive rights or, you know, people who birth children and
caretaking abilities.
We see that there seems to bealmost a preoccupation with
women's roles in societydepending on their age, their
reproductive ability and theiroverall worth.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
I agree with you.
I think also, the big piecethere is about authenticity,
right, and that's what we asvoters need to be looking for,
because, you know, a debatestage is a performance.
At the end of the day, it isnot really meant for dialogue
right Back and forth dialogue ina meaningful way.
The structure itself doesn'tallow for that right.
(09:47):
Mics have to be muted and indebate you shouldn't talk over
people.
But that's not how realconversation is and what we need
to focus on is their quoteunquote performance off the
stage, because that is closer towho they are as a person and
(10:09):
how they plan to govern.
The other factor in these moremodern elections is social media
, so you actually are playing tothe soundbite rather than
wanting to have a meaningfulconversation or dive deeper into
(10:30):
those details, because it's notgoing to play well when it has
to be replayed on social, whichis problematic.
Things that irritates me themost about these debate forums
is that the questions are neveranswered.
So I'm like why are we evenasking questions just throughout
(10:51):
topics?
What do you think aboutimmigration?
Boom, let them riff right andthen do some back and forth,
rather than these very specificquestions that they're not going
to answer and worse, questionsthat they're not going to answer
.
And worse, not going to becompelled to answer, which means
the question didn't meananything in the first place.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
And that's it.
So, yes, authenticity, yes toplaying to a soundbite that you
can chop up and use for thepurposes of social media.
And then my question is, youknow, is this how, how do we
balance this Right?
How do we whet the appetite forsubstance analysis and critical
thought?
Or do we reshape our approachto substance analysis and
(11:41):
critical thought to see what wecan get into a 90 second clip
and what do we do with that?
What do we, how can we engagewith that?
Because I would say, with theDemocratic vice presidential
(12:04):
candidate, there were some flubsthere, and this is someone who
said you know, initially, thatthey've not historically been a
great debater, but had some winson his own Right I don't want
to seem biased in that space andtrying to answer for his
timeline in China trying toanswer for a timeline in China,
(12:29):
that was it was awkward, longand painful and, additionally,
came back with a very to yourpoint about not answering
questions, came back to say, hey, who do you believe won the
2020 election, presidentialelection, right, and said that
is a damning non-answer.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Right, that was his snackable moment.
That was his snackable moment.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
And so for me, you know, as a voter, when I'm
listening but even in my work,right, when I'm asking questions
, I'm listening for the damnablenon-answer and the actual
(13:14):
answer, right defensiveness.
Are you looking to advance yourown idea?
And how do we get to a pointwhere our communication is
effective enough, such thatwe're not solely bound by the
(13:37):
limits of the other person'scomprehension Right or their
willingness to comprehend?
Speaker 1 (13:43):
Right, or their willingness to comprehend, and
(14:04):
it's changed so dramatically insuch a short period of time that
I don't know that the politicalengine has kept up completely
with it.
You know, and?
But we, as voters, we we needto transition from being
low-informed voters right tohigh-informed voters and soak up
(14:27):
that information and beintentional and do what you're
doing right, which is listeningand interpreting that for
ourselves.
Now, what I said at the top ofthis was one of my first
impressions.
It was far less entertaining,right?
I'm just being honest in myassessment about that, but I
also know it's not supposed tobe entertainment.
Right, that's indicative of aproblem, because technically, I
(15:09):
was not entertained from thebeginning and wanted to change
the channel, but I was like, no,again, this is not
entertainment.
Ok, I need to listen, I need toknow what's going on, I need to
understand how I'm viewing this, but also how other people may
view this.
So I'm trying to be moreinformed, despite my desire for
(15:33):
something else.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
You know, I'm thinking, as you were speaking
about it being entertainment orinfotainment, right, where we
have that blend blend.
I'm thinking of tiktok, becausetiktok initially was what?
30, 60 seconds, maybe 90seconds at most, incredibly, you
know short form content wherepeople were sharing stories, how
(16:02):
to's right.
There's tons of informationthat you can get on this
platform and similar with othersocial media platforms.
I know Instagram and responsesInstagram reels and I've seen
the length right.
(16:22):
So now you can make a 10 minuteTikTok where you can get a
little bit more in depth aboutwhatever your topic is.
And that's really fascinatingto me, because I'm assuming they
(16:44):
did this in response tocustomer or consumer demand,
which would be I need more timeto talk about this.
And so then that makes mewonder is critical thinking back
?
Is substance back?
Speaker 1 (17:03):
In short form Short form substance.
Is it back In short form Shortform substance Is it back, maybe
it's back.
Maybe TikTok was training usall along.
Right, like you said, 30, 60,90, now 10 minutes.
Five minutes Maybe and you know,I'm sure, like you know I've
(17:28):
we've seen all different sortsof political, you know, not ads,
but content right that takes upall of those spaces.
And I'm just wondering, like,if we need more of those longer
form pieces to help inform thevoting public.
You know, as a marketer, mywhole thing is rinse, reuse,
(17:51):
repeat right, and so we createsomething.
Obviously we chop it up, werinse, reuse, repeat it in
different ways and understandingthat people want to digest
information differently.
You know, I'm more of a visualperson, visual and audio.
So visual audio person if Ijust hear something, I might not
(18:13):
retain it, as well as havingthe visual component with it.
So, like audio books, although Ilike audio books.
And so, like audio books,although I like audio books,
probably not the best if it'ssomething that I really need to
remember and digest.
And so you take into accountall these different forms.
(18:33):
And so maybe there just needsto be more effort towards the
really policy driven pieces fromthese candidates.
I know a lot of third partiesdo it right, they have their own
interpretation, which is cool,but I really want to hear that
(18:55):
from the candidates in theirauthentic voice, in the way that
they're going to talk about it,you know, and what again on the
debate stage.
You know, and what again on thedebate stage, it's really the
high level for lack of a betterterm right now dumbing down of
really dense policy that nobodywants to hear about on stage,
(19:19):
right on television, which is aproblem.
That nobody wants to hear aboutit Because then they're one
issue voters and you know that'san issue because it's just the
one thing that they can actuallyzero in on.
That may be important to them,but there's a host of things
that are affecting it and wedon't truly understand that
(19:41):
effect.
I know there's a lot of thingsI learn every single time right
Like this was not necessarilytaught in depth in school and
basically how much our votesmatter and how we need to think
and, like you said, thinkcritically about the information
that we're given and how do wedigest that information.
(20:04):
I know these bills are likebillions of pages long.
I don't know how to solve forthat right, but it needs to be
solved for Because what we'vealso seen is that politicians
that we elect that are there toserve us and politicians that we
(20:40):
elect that are there to serveus sometimes have dual focus
agenda.
They don't.
No one does what they're doinga hundred percent for the good
of someone else, right?
Let's just keep that real.
So what is in it for them iswhat we need to understand when
we put people in office as well,and what they're going to do
(21:02):
with that power.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
So marketing question for you.
You said, you know themarketing formula is rents,
reuse, repeat.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
My marketing.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
Yours.
You're an incredible marketer,so we can have it as a standard,
is there?
How often can you do that?
How do you know when there's alimit to?
Speaker 1 (21:28):
engagement.
You know, um, you know, you'rereally so the the reason why
it's rinse, reuse, repeat isbecause nobody sees everything
at one time.
Right again, we're.
Our focus is all over the place.
Plus, you also have to seethings several times in order
for it to even register, so youhave to constantly put things
out there and then, as I said,in different ways, for people to
(21:51):
digest it differently.
You can use something if it'sreally good and high value and
meaningful.
You can use it for as long asit is that to the particular
audience right, long as it isthat to the particular audience,
right.
So it really makes sense tocreate quality, in some ways
(22:11):
matched with quantity, but moreso quality that you can do a lot
of different things with.
So I don't know that there'slike a total end game.
I mean, at some point the stuffis old and stale and new
information comes out, and Ithink that happens a lot more
today because there's so muchthat's coming out that it
probably has a less of a shelflife than it probably did five
(22:34):
years ago.
But you can get some goodtraction from equality.
Speaker 2 (22:37):
Okay, yeah, I was just thinking um About the
number of ways that we need tohear information for it to stick
.
I'm also thinking of civicsclass, which has I heard a lot
during the debate of you knowwhat people could and could not
(23:13):
do during the time as vicepresident, or you know what
those responsibilities are likeand simple things.
I remember schoolhouse rock.
I don't know if anybodylistening does.
Speaker 1 (23:34):
By the way, they did one for Project 2025.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
They did, they did.
It's great.
It is great, a greatexplanation of what you can
expect.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
Maybe we should put that in the show notes.
Let me write that down in theshow notes.
Let me write that down.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
Yeah, but very simple things.
Right, you know the threebranches of government, you know
the number of senators, thenumber of representatives in the
House of Representatives right,these are things that we should
have some sort of workingknowledge of.
The fact that you're not justvoting for the president on
(24:11):
election day right, you have aeveryone from your local school
board representatives to thepresident of the united states,
and it's critical that you havea working understanding.
I would think so.
I've just been thinking of waysto make that entertaining too.
Speaker 1 (24:38):
Well, I don't know the answer to that.
At the end of the day, I haveno idea what the answer to that
is, but if we did more thingslike Schoolhouse Rock, I think
that's step number one.
But I think it definitely is ashame that, like you said,
civics class is gone, because Ithink, well, the question I
(24:59):
don't know what I think on this,but the question is why?
Why have those classes beenremoved?
Is it intentional has beenremoved?
Is it intentional, Right?
Is it better for us in generalnot to know what people are
doing and what theirresponsibilities are, because
then someone will be heldaccountable for their actions or
inactions?
(25:19):
Right?
And I can't help but ask thatquestion because there have been
so many different things thathave happened intentionally,
such as, you know.
You know, trying to rewrite thedistrict thing, right, so we
control voting blocks, Likethat's an example of just like
(25:41):
things that are intentionallydone to control the outcomes of
elections.
And if you start in schools bystarting off with us being again
low-informed voters, right,then the barrier becomes higher
and higher, you know, in termsof us getting to the point where
we understand what's going on,Because then life happens, work
(26:04):
happens, we're influenced by allthe people around us and we
don't feel like we need to divedeeper and learn for ourselves
because everything's just beinggiven to us in this fast and
furious way.
So I can't help but ask thequestion is that intentional?
Because who?
Why in the world would we notthink that that content is not
(26:26):
important for students to learnwhen they're going to cast their
first vote at 18, when theygraduate?
Speaker 2 (26:35):
And I guess even the fact that it's a point to be
celebrated, right, I remembercasting my first vote when I was
18 and I was really, reallyexcited about it, yeah.
Speaker 1 (26:58):
Are we still looking to engage young people?
Speaker 2 (26:59):
Depends on which side of the aisle you talk to, right
?
Speaker 1 (27:02):
Because, which is so troubling?
Right?
Because, yeah, you know, youthink that you know, young
people typically are for forwardprogress and they typically
seem to vote Democratic.
And so, you, they definitelywant change, right, they want
(27:23):
these things and so they look tothe party that's going to bring
that in the way that they thinkis important.
And, yeah, you might want tosuppress that vote for certain
groups, right?
We've seen those things doneintentionally time and time
again, so I don't think it's ahuge leap to think that there's
(27:45):
a broader plan there.
It might sound a littleconspiracy theorist, but at the
end of the day, I really don'tthink so.
Speaker 2 (27:53):
There's tons of evidence around this, and even
if we were to say we don't wantthe kids voting because they
don't understand theimplications of their vote, we
don't want the kids votingbecause they may not know what
they're voting for, my responsewould then be well, shouldn't we
(28:14):
share with them, Shouldn't wegive them the information
necessary to make an informed,educated vote?
Speaker 1 (28:23):
I mean yeah they're no longer kids.
They're adults at 18, justadults who can't drink.
But they're adults, right.
They can go out and get jobs,rent apartments, they can buy a
car, they can do all the things,and so there shouldn't be an
argument that they're uninformed.
Right, they should have beenprepared for that, and they're
(28:46):
also.
They've graduated, many of whomare going off to college, and
they're perfectly capable oflearning, whether you went to
college or not.
But you're perfectly capable ofabsorbing information that's
going to have a major effect onyour own life.
And they're given the right tovote at 18.
That's just it.
And they're given the right tovote at 18.
(29:08):
That's just it.
So either you prepare them oryou don't.
And what's your reason for notdoing it?
Speaker 2 (29:19):
Hmm, I can't think of a good reason for not doing it
Other than the sinister one?
Yes, other than to be you knowif you missed us at at the
inbound conference.
I mean, it was a time, but oneof the points that we came out
with was just, you know what'sthe point of the exclusion?
(29:39):
And I think to your point.
Speaker 1 (29:58):
It's very, very clear to see what the point of the
exclusion is.
I don't know that we would sayit's a legitimate purpose,
legitimate civic purpose at thispoint, outside of just looking
to control.
Yeah, I mean, it's also thesame is unrelated, but, like,
financial literacy should be arequired course in high school.
You should know how to manageyour money as an adult when you
leave school.
Why is that not part of thecurriculum?
Because that's going to helpstudents hopefully not students,
(30:21):
excuse me that's going to help18-year-old plus adults, okay,
understand how to manage theirmoney, stay out of debt, save,
hopefully reduce some of that.
You know economic gap, likeit's going to have so many
benefits.
Understanding the stock markets, right, just how things work.
(30:44):
If I had that class when I wasmuch younger, I mean, one of the
first things that I did wasopen up a credit card in college
and run that sucker up Cause Ididn't understand you had to pay
it back, okay.
And then what happened?
I got bad credit, Right, andthen understand that I was going
to need that for a while andthen had to work to repair all
(31:07):
of that, right, um and so.
But if I had known that I'm notsaying maybe, maybe I still
would have done it.
Maybe I still wouldn't havedone it, but informed consent,
you know.
Yeah, I was.
I was ignorant about it in thatregard and maybe I would have
had the information.
Um, or I'm sure my parents toldme, but I don't listen to your
(31:32):
parents, right, so you need tohear it from different sources.
My grandmother was like youknow, you got to pay that back
and I'm like what?
I have no idea.
But again, my question is whyaren't we teaching these
important skills life skills,okay, that are necessary in high
(31:55):
school?
What is the intention behindthat?
Speaker 2 (32:02):
And to those who you don't have to be a parent to
teach right, there are mentorsyou can.
I'm sure maybe you have nieces,nephews, your friends' children
, you know there's so manyopportunities for you to
meaningfully engage with youngpeople, who really do need that
(32:24):
perspective from people outsideof their parents, like you said,
karen no one's going to listento their parents.
You don't know right.
You need an unbiased adult, whomay be cooler than your parents
.
Speaker 1 (32:39):
There you go, that's what.
There you go.
But I think at the the day, nomatter what our age is right, we
need to understand that ourpresence on this earth has
meaning in many different ways,and one of those ways is in the
(33:02):
voting booth, because we live inthis system that was created
before many of us were born,right before any of us were born
, probably.
I was gonna say, hopefully allof us, if you're still there and
maybe there needs to be sometweaks to this, to some of these
(33:24):
systems.
I don't know, but we're livingin this system and we need to
understand the game right, knowthe rules and play it
accordingly right, play itaccording to the rules or know
when we need to like work tochange some of them.
(33:44):
And there's a ton of loopholes,which means there's a lot of
rules bending.
So understand what thoseopportunities to bend, the rules
are good and bad, and when youneed to help put the kibosh on
some of those things.
We all need to be activeparticipants in this process and
not just stand by and complainabout it, but it's hard to be
(34:05):
active if you don't know what'sgoing on.
Speaker 2 (34:07):
Yeah, and learn how to speak and write well.
Exactly, exactly, exactly.
You know if that's sound evenbetter when they are well
(34:29):
articulated.
Speaker 1 (34:30):
Exactly Because guess what.
You can lie and people willbelieve.
You Speak and write well, withconfidence too, right, but it's
even better when you're tellingthe truth.
Speaker 2 (34:44):
Even better when you're telling the truth.
Yeah, so anyway.
Speaker 1 (34:48):
So that's my takeaways from the VP debate.
Speaker 2 (34:52):
Likewise.
Likewise, I mean hopefully wewould love to hear from you,
hear what you thought, anythingthat you took away, I guess
we'll see.
Yeah, you know We'll continue.
To election.
Totally, totally Depends onyeah, guess we'll see.
Yeah, you know we'll continueto election.
Totally, totally depends onyeah, wherever you're getting
(35:13):
the sources of pull from.
But you know yeah, we'll see.
Speaker 1 (35:21):
We'll see what happens.
There's a lot.
Whatever happens, we're gonnahave a lot to talk about we will
alright, until the next time onthe e-word.
Hey Brittany, hi Karen.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
Welcome back.
Welcome back, yes, the E-word.
How are you?
Speaker 1 (00:08):
feeling I'm okay.
You know it's been a good dayand I'm hoping we hop into the
weekend with some relaxation.
Read a good book watch some TVshows chill out.
How about you?
Speaker 2 (00:24):
I'm going to do the same.
I'm going to do the same.
I'm going to do the same.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
There's a book that I am really excited to get into,
so yeah, okay, maybe what we'lldo one day is have little bonus
sessions, just start a bookreview.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Book review.
Can we add some shows in there?
Speaker 1 (00:47):
Let's add some shows in there too.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Add some shows in there too.
I have to say I am.
You know, we both love comics,and so I've been watching agatha
all along.
And we speak about equity andwe can make it work.
Speaker 1 (01:05):
We can make it work or not because people are very
serious all the time about thevery serious topic, so people
can see some of the unseriousstuff as well.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Exactly, we're very serious about our joy as well.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
There you go.
You have to balance that withthese hard topics.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
We do.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
So, we definitely do but we have a hard topic again
today, right?
I think so.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
I think so.
So we are at the time I mean,it's election season, right, yep
and we are dealing with thesedebates, these debates?
(01:49):
Now, as I understand it, thedebates are the candidates'
opportunities to detail theirplans, their prospective
policies and their vision forthe country.
And not only do we have thepresidential debates, we have
the vice presidential debates,and so this past week, I watched
the vice presidential debates,and so this past week, I watched
the vice presidential debates.
Did you?
I did Initial takeaways.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Well, on an unserious front.
Okay, it was far lessentertaining than the
presidential debate, I'll haveto say.
No cats or dogs, no cats or dogs, no cats or dogs Although that
(02:33):
was terrible, not reallyentertainment, but in general
right.
But you know, I guess in termsof content, like how you just
described what the debates arefor, I honestly think the format
is very difficult for that.
The format is really made forsoundbites or short high-level
overviews of policy, notnecessarily these deep dives
(02:54):
that when you listen to thereporters and pundits afterwards
they're really gunning for ortrying to extrapolate from the
conversation.
But when you're given twominutes on a topic like, you
know, immigration, how deep divecan you go?
What it does lend itself to,again, is those high level
(03:15):
takeaways.
But also, you know, people canmisconstrue the information.
People can misconstrue theinformation.
Some people can out and out lieabout the information and
because it's in these digestiblebites, it's actually hard to
fact check them in the moment.
(03:35):
And if you are a verywell-spoken person, some things
can actually seem to make sense.
But when you have to, you know,take a moment to digest and
think about it, then you realizethat there's a lot more to it
or the facts may have been wrongin some cases.
So it's a tricky format for me.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Interesting.
Interesting, know that.
Um, you talked about the, thesekind of sound bites, which I
think are fascinating because ifyou're really, if you do them
really well, you can beperceived to be much more
(04:20):
competent, right and capable,competent, right and capable in
your role.
Um, so, when I'm thinking back,one of the soundbites I recall
is you know, we were told therewould be no fact checking, and I
found that to be interesting.
(04:41):
Um, but I guess my initialimpression was that we had
someone that was a very polished, very experienced debater.
Yeah, we had someone whoclearly went to law school, he
went to Yale, he went to Yaleand someone who did not Right
and really struggled with thatformat to create these snackable
(05:09):
quips for us to take away andput in our pocket as proof
positive of truthfulness orability or competence or
anything like that.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
I agree with that.
I mean, that's what's reallytough, right, because also, you
had that one person who has beenon the media trail for a more
extended period of time has,like you said, that background
(05:45):
in training and I think one ofthe reporters used this as kind
of like a chameleon right Intheir ability to, you know, just
navigate any sort of objectionor contrary point of view with
more stealth than the othercandidate, right.
(06:07):
And so you know I've alwayskind of believed this to be true
that if you are an eloquentspeaker and writer, it doesn't
matter if you're wrong or youdon't know what you're talking
about.
It doesn't matter if you'rewrong or you don't know what
you're talking about, you willactually elevate faster than
(06:28):
someone who doesn't have thoseskills or the same level of
skills.
I think someone I forget whosaid this because I would credit
her right now but she said youcould be dumb as a box of rocks
if you can speak and write tosomeone, right, and it's true,
I'm not saying now, now that'sif you're dumb, but if you're
(06:51):
smart and can do those things.
And now you add some level ofI'm just going to say deceit
into that mix.
That can be mixed.
That can be missed by manypeople because of your eloquence
.
If you speak with confidenceand eloquence, people tend to
believe you, no matter whatyou're saying, even if it's
(07:13):
foolishness, right.
And so the Republican vicepresidential candidate had far
more superior skills in terms ofhis eloquence than the Democrat
VP.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
Right, and to your point about deceit, I think what
we're tasked with doing asvoters is really kind of leaning
into our existing biases tomatch the candidate up against
who we believe is more capable,competent, maybe even
(07:54):
trustworthy.
And I've just been thinkingabout how and whether you're
able to build trust in such ashort period of time Because, to
your point I would say, thevice presidential Republican
candidate performed quite wellduring the debate but has
(08:17):
struggled with more long formmedia engagements because there
seems to be once the veneer kindof wears off.
We're hearing things that seemto be a little bit strange but
certainly inauthentic, whetherit's admitting to having rented
(08:40):
a dog because it makes them seemmore likable or approachable to
ordering a donut Right.
To yeah, things that.
Or childcare, right, there's aton of talk about women's
(09:01):
reproductive rights or, you know, people who birth children and
caretaking abilities.
We see that there seems to bealmost a preoccupation with
women's roles in societydepending on their age, their
reproductive ability and theiroverall worth.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
I agree with you.
I think also, the big piecethere is about authenticity,
right, and that's what we asvoters need to be looking for,
because, you know, a debatestage is a performance.
At the end of the day, it isnot really meant for dialogue
right Back and forth dialogue ina meaningful way.
The structure itself doesn'tallow for that right.
(09:47):
Mics have to be muted and indebate you shouldn't talk over
people.
But that's not how realconversation is and what we need
to focus on is their quoteunquote performance off the
stage, because that is closer towho they are as a person and
(10:09):
how they plan to govern.
The other factor in these moremodern elections is social media
, so you actually are playing tothe soundbite rather than
wanting to have a meaningfulconversation or dive deeper into
(10:30):
those details, because it's notgoing to play well when it has
to be replayed on social, whichis problematic.
Things that irritates me themost about these debate forums
is that the questions are neveranswered.
So I'm like why are we evenasking questions just throughout
(10:51):
topics?
What do you think aboutimmigration?
Boom, let them riff right andthen do some back and forth,
rather than these very specificquestions that they're not going
to answer and worse, questionsthat they're not going to answer
.
And worse, not going to becompelled to answer, which means
the question didn't meananything in the first place.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
And that's it.
So, yes, authenticity, yes toplaying to a soundbite that you
can chop up and use for thepurposes of social media.
And then my question is, youknow, is this how, how do we
balance this Right?
How do we whet the appetite forsubstance analysis and critical
thought?
Or do we reshape our approachto substance analysis and
(11:41):
critical thought to see what wecan get into a 90 second clip
and what do we do with that?
What do we, how can we engagewith that?
Because I would say, with theDemocratic vice presidential
(12:04):
candidate, there were some flubsthere, and this is someone who
said you know, initially, thatthey've not historically been a
great debater, but had some winson his own Right I don't want
to seem biased in that space andtrying to answer for his
timeline in China trying toanswer for a timeline in China,
(12:29):
that was it was awkward, longand painful and, additionally,
came back with a very to yourpoint about not answering
questions, came back to say, hey, who do you believe won the
2020 election, presidentialelection, right, and said that
is a damning non-answer.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Right, that was his snackable moment.
That was his snackable moment.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
And so for me, you know, as a voter, when I'm
listening but even in my work,right, when I'm asking questions
, I'm listening for the damnablenon-answer and the actual
(13:14):
answer, right defensiveness.
Are you looking to advance yourown idea?
And how do we get to a pointwhere our communication is
effective enough, such thatwe're not solely bound by the
(13:37):
limits of the other person'scomprehension Right or their
willingness to comprehend?
Speaker 1 (13:43):
Right, or their willingness to comprehend, and
(14:04):
it's changed so dramatically insuch a short period of time that
I don't know that the politicalengine has kept up completely
with it.
You know, and?
But we, as voters, we we needto transition from being
low-informed voters right tohigh-informed voters and soak up
(14:27):
that information and beintentional and do what you're
doing right, which is listeningand interpreting that for
ourselves.
Now, what I said at the top ofthis was one of my first
impressions.
It was far less entertaining,right?
I'm just being honest in myassessment about that, but I
also know it's not supposed tobe entertainment.
Right, that's indicative of aproblem, because technically, I
(15:09):
was not entertained from thebeginning and wanted to change
the channel, but I was like, no,again, this is not
entertainment.
Ok, I need to listen, I need toknow what's going on, I need to
understand how I'm viewing this, but also how other people may
view this.
So I'm trying to be moreinformed, despite my desire for
(15:33):
something else.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
You know, I'm thinking, as you were speaking
about it being entertainment orinfotainment, right, where we
have that blend blend.
I'm thinking of tiktok, becausetiktok initially was what?
30, 60 seconds, maybe 90seconds at most, incredibly, you
know short form content wherepeople were sharing stories, how
(16:02):
to's right.
There's tons of informationthat you can get on this
platform and similar with othersocial media platforms.
I know Instagram and responsesInstagram reels and I've seen
the length right.
(16:22):
So now you can make a 10 minuteTikTok where you can get a
little bit more in depth aboutwhatever your topic is.
And that's really fascinatingto me, because I'm assuming they
(16:44):
did this in response tocustomer or consumer demand,
which would be I need more timeto talk about this.
And so then that makes mewonder is critical thinking back
?
Is substance back?
Speaker 1 (17:03):
In short form Short form substance.
Is it back In short form Shortform substance Is it back, maybe
it's back.
Maybe TikTok was training usall along.
Right, like you said, 30, 60,90, now 10 minutes.
Five minutes Maybe and you know,I'm sure, like you know I've
(17:28):
we've seen all different sortsof political, you know, not ads,
but content right that takes upall of those spaces.
And I'm just wondering, like,if we need more of those longer
form pieces to help inform thevoting public.
You know, as a marketer, mywhole thing is rinse, reuse,
(17:51):
repeat right, and so we createsomething.
Obviously we chop it up, werinse, reuse, repeat it in
different ways and understandingthat people want to digest
information differently.
You know, I'm more of a visualperson, visual and audio.
So visual audio person if Ijust hear something, I might not
(18:13):
retain it, as well as havingthe visual component with it.
So, like audio books, although Ilike audio books.
And so, like audio books,although I like audio books,
probably not the best if it'ssomething that I really need to
remember and digest.
And so you take into accountall these different forms.
(18:33):
And so maybe there just needsto be more effort towards the
really policy driven pieces fromthese candidates.
I know a lot of third partiesdo it right, they have their own
interpretation, which is cool,but I really want to hear that
(18:55):
from the candidates in theirauthentic voice, in the way that
they're going to talk about it,you know, and what again on the
debate stage.
You know, and what again on thedebate stage, it's really the
high level for lack of a betterterm right now dumbing down of
really dense policy that nobodywants to hear about on stage,
(19:19):
right on television, which is aproblem.
That nobody wants to hear aboutit Because then they're one
issue voters and you know that'san issue because it's just the
one thing that they can actuallyzero in on.
That may be important to them,but there's a host of things
that are affecting it and wedon't truly understand that
(19:41):
effect.
I know there's a lot of thingsI learn every single time right
Like this was not necessarilytaught in depth in school and
basically how much our votesmatter and how we need to think
and, like you said, thinkcritically about the information
that we're given and how do wedigest that information.
(20:04):
I know these bills are likebillions of pages long.
I don't know how to solve forthat right, but it needs to be
solved for Because what we'vealso seen is that politicians
that we elect that are there toserve us and politicians that we
(20:40):
elect that are there to serveus sometimes have dual focus
agenda.
They don't.
No one does what they're doinga hundred percent for the good
of someone else, right?
Let's just keep that real.
So what is in it for them iswhat we need to understand when
we put people in office as well,and what they're going to do
(21:02):
with that power.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
So marketing question for you.
You said, you know themarketing formula is rents,
reuse, repeat.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
My marketing.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
Yours.
You're an incredible marketer,so we can have it as a standard,
is there?
How often can you do that?
How do you know when there's alimit to?
Speaker 1 (21:28):
engagement.
You know, um, you know, you'rereally so the the reason why
it's rinse, reuse, repeat isbecause nobody sees everything
at one time.
Right again, we're.
Our focus is all over the place.
Plus, you also have to seethings several times in order
for it to even register, so youhave to constantly put things
out there and then, as I said,in different ways, for people to
(21:51):
digest it differently.
You can use something if it'sreally good and high value and
meaningful.
You can use it for as long asit is that to the particular
audience right, long as it isthat to the particular audience,
right.
So it really makes sense tocreate quality, in some ways
(22:11):
matched with quantity, but moreso quality that you can do a lot
of different things with.
So I don't know that there'slike a total end game.
I mean, at some point the stuffis old and stale and new
information comes out, and Ithink that happens a lot more
today because there's so muchthat's coming out that it
probably has a less of a shelflife than it probably did five
(22:34):
years ago.
But you can get some goodtraction from equality.
Speaker 2 (22:37):
Okay, yeah, I was just thinking um About the
number of ways that we need tohear information for it to stick
.
I'm also thinking of civicsclass, which has I heard a lot
during the debate of you knowwhat people could and could not
(23:13):
do during the time as vicepresident, or you know what
those responsibilities are likeand simple things.
I remember schoolhouse rock.
I don't know if anybodylistening does.
Speaker 1 (23:34):
By the way, they did one for Project 2025.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
They did, they did.
It's great.
It is great, a greatexplanation of what you can
expect.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
Maybe we should put that in the show notes.
Let me write that down in theshow notes.
Let me write that down.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
Yeah, but very simple things.
Right, you know the threebranches of government, you know
the number of senators, thenumber of representatives in the
House of Representatives right,these are things that we should
have some sort of workingknowledge of.
The fact that you're not justvoting for the president on
(24:11):
election day right, you have aeveryone from your local school
board representatives to thepresident of the united states,
and it's critical that you havea working understanding.
I would think so.
I've just been thinking of waysto make that entertaining too.
Speaker 1 (24:38):
Well, I don't know the answer to that.
At the end of the day, I haveno idea what the answer to that
is, but if we did more thingslike Schoolhouse Rock, I think
that's step number one.
But I think it definitely is ashame that, like you said,
civics class is gone, because Ithink, well, the question I
(24:59):
don't know what I think on this,but the question is why?
Why have those classes beenremoved?
Is it intentional has beenremoved?
Is it intentional, Right?
Is it better for us in generalnot to know what people are
doing and what theirresponsibilities are, because
then someone will be heldaccountable for their actions or
inactions?
(25:19):
Right?
And I can't help but ask thatquestion because there have been
so many different things thathave happened intentionally,
such as, you know.
You know, trying to rewrite thedistrict thing, right, so we
control voting blocks, Likethat's an example of just like
(25:41):
things that are intentionallydone to control the outcomes of
elections.
And if you start in schools bystarting off with us being again
low-informed voters, right,then the barrier becomes higher
and higher, you know, in termsof us getting to the point where
we understand what's going on,Because then life happens, work
(26:04):
happens, we're influenced by allthe people around us and we
don't feel like we need to divedeeper and learn for ourselves
because everything's just beinggiven to us in this fast and
furious way.
So I can't help but ask thequestion is that intentional?
Because who?
Why in the world would we notthink that that content is not
(26:26):
important for students to learnwhen they're going to cast their
first vote at 18, when theygraduate?
Speaker 2 (26:35):
And I guess even the fact that it's a point to be
celebrated, right, I remembercasting my first vote when I was
18 and I was really, reallyexcited about it, yeah.
Speaker 1 (26:58):
Are we still looking to engage young people?
Speaker 2 (26:59):
Depends on which side of the aisle you talk to, right
?
Speaker 1 (27:02):
Because, which is so troubling?
Right?
Because, yeah, you know, youthink that you know, young
people typically are for forwardprogress and they typically
seem to vote Democratic.
And so, you, they definitelywant change, right, they want
(27:23):
these things and so they look tothe party that's going to bring
that in the way that they thinkis important.
And, yeah, you might want tosuppress that vote for certain
groups, right?
We've seen those things doneintentionally time and time
again, so I don't think it's ahuge leap to think that there's
(27:45):
a broader plan there.
It might sound a littleconspiracy theorist, but at the
end of the day, I really don'tthink so.
Speaker 2 (27:53):
There's tons of evidence around this, and even
if we were to say we don't wantthe kids voting because they
don't understand theimplications of their vote, we
don't want the kids votingbecause they may not know what
they're voting for, my responsewould then be well, shouldn't we
(28:14):
share with them, Shouldn't wegive them the information
necessary to make an informed,educated vote?
Speaker 1 (28:23):
I mean yeah they're no longer kids.
They're adults at 18, justadults who can't drink.
But they're adults, right.
They can go out and get jobs,rent apartments, they can buy a
car, they can do all the things,and so there shouldn't be an
argument that they're uninformed.
Right, they should have beenprepared for that, and they're
(28:46):
also.
They've graduated, many of whomare going off to college, and
they're perfectly capable oflearning, whether you went to
college or not.
But you're perfectly capable ofabsorbing information that's
going to have a major effect onyour own life.
And they're given the right tovote at 18.
That's just it.
And they're given the right tovote at 18.
(29:08):
That's just it.
So either you prepare them oryou don't.
And what's your reason for notdoing it?
Speaker 2 (29:19):
Hmm, I can't think of a good reason for not doing it
Other than the sinister one?
Yes, other than to be you knowif you missed us at at the
inbound conference.
I mean, it was a time, but oneof the points that we came out
with was just, you know what'sthe point of the exclusion?
(29:39):
And I think to your point.
Speaker 1 (29:58):
It's very, very clear to see what the point of the
exclusion is.
I don't know that we would sayit's a legitimate purpose,
legitimate civic purpose at thispoint, outside of just looking
to control.
Yeah, I mean, it's also thesame is unrelated, but, like,
financial literacy should be arequired course in high school.
You should know how to manageyour money as an adult when you
leave school.
Why is that not part of thecurriculum?
Because that's going to helpstudents hopefully not students,
(30:21):
excuse me that's going to help18-year-old plus adults, okay,
understand how to manage theirmoney, stay out of debt, save,
hopefully reduce some of that.
You know economic gap, likeit's going to have so many
benefits.
Understanding the stock markets, right, just how things work.
(30:44):
If I had that class when I wasmuch younger, I mean, one of the
first things that I did wasopen up a credit card in college
and run that sucker up Cause Ididn't understand you had to pay
it back, okay.
And then what happened?
I got bad credit, Right, andthen understand that I was going
to need that for a while andthen had to work to repair all
(31:07):
of that, right, um and so.
But if I had known that I'm notsaying maybe, maybe I still
would have done it.
Maybe I still wouldn't havedone it, but informed consent,
you know.
Yeah, I was.
I was ignorant about it in thatregard and maybe I would have
had the information.
Um, or I'm sure my parents toldme, but I don't listen to your
(31:32):
parents, right, so you need tohear it from different sources.
My grandmother was like youknow, you got to pay that back
and I'm like what?
I have no idea.
But again, my question is whyaren't we teaching these
important skills life skills,okay, that are necessary in high
(31:55):
school?
What is the intention behindthat?
Speaker 2 (32:02):
And to those who you don't have to be a parent to
teach right, there are mentorsyou can.
I'm sure maybe you have nieces,nephews, your friends' children
, you know there's so manyopportunities for you to
meaningfully engage with youngpeople, who really do need that
(32:24):
perspective from people outsideof their parents, like you said,
karen no one's going to listento their parents.
You don't know right.
You need an unbiased adult, whomay be cooler than your parents
.
Speaker 1 (32:39):
There you go, that's what.
There you go.
But I think at the the day, nomatter what our age is right, we
need to understand that ourpresence on this earth has
meaning in many different ways,and one of those ways is in the
(33:02):
voting booth, because we live inthis system that was created
before many of us were born,right before any of us were born
, probably.
I was gonna say, hopefully allof us, if you're still there and
maybe there needs to be sometweaks to this, to some of these
(33:24):
systems.
I don't know, but we're livingin this system and we need to
understand the game right, knowthe rules and play it
accordingly right, play itaccording to the rules or know
when we need to like work tochange some of them.
(33:44):
And there's a ton of loopholes,which means there's a lot of
rules bending.
So understand what thoseopportunities to bend, the rules
are good and bad, and when youneed to help put the kibosh on
some of those things.
We all need to be activeparticipants in this process and
not just stand by and complainabout it, but it's hard to be
(34:05):
active if you don't know what'sgoing on.
Speaker 2 (34:07):
Yeah, and learn how to speak and write well.
Exactly, exactly, exactly.
You know if that's sound evenbetter when they are well
(34:29):
articulated.
Speaker 1 (34:30):
Exactly Because guess what.
You can lie and people willbelieve.
You Speak and write well, withconfidence too, right, but it's
even better when you're tellingthe truth.
Speaker 2 (34:44):
Even better when you're telling the truth.
Yeah, so anyway.
Speaker 1 (34:48):
So that's my takeaways from the VP debate.
Speaker 2 (34:52):
Likewise.
Likewise, I mean hopefully wewould love to hear from you,
hear what you thought, anythingthat you took away, I guess
we'll see.
Yeah, you know We'll continue.
To election.
Totally, totally Depends onyeah, guess we'll see.
Yeah, you know we'll continueto election.
Totally, totally depends onyeah, wherever you're getting
(35:13):
the sources of pull from.
But you know yeah, we'll see.
Speaker 1 (35:21):
We'll see what happens.
There's a lot.
Whatever happens, we're gonnahave a lot to talk about we will
alright, until the next time onthe e-word.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.