Consumed by the news? How to stay sane in a polarized election

Introduction- Host Mónica Guzmán introduces the episode’s theme: the role of media in political polarization and strategies for consuming election news without losing our minds or hearts in the process. 

Mónica introduces this episode’s guest: Isaac Saul, a national politics reporter for Tangle News, who highlights how structural incentives within news organizations can contribute to divisive content, underscoring a shared responsibility between producers and consumers.

Isaac discusses how Tangle’s commitment to neutrality and transparency has cultivated a diverse reader base, showcasing the value of open-minded media consumption.

• Isaac: “When the news becomes entertainment, when it relies on ratings when it relies on traffic in order to make money, there are natural organic incentives that come out of that.”
• Isaac: “If you really genuinely do want more policy discussion or more level-headed politics or whatever else it is, the best way to get that to happen is to send signals to our news organizations that you want more of that content and they will receive it.’

Isaac gives practical tips on recognizing biased reporting, suggesting ways to identify when stories are designed to manipulate emotions rather than inform.

• Isaac: “If you are reading a story where the headline doesn’t quite match the first few paragraphs like, ‘Oh, I thought the story was going to be a little different, or it seemed like maybe this was more serious’ then that’s a really good kind of spidey sense alarm of like, ‘Oh, I just got got with like a little bit of a misleading headline, something that was maybe a little sensationalized.’”
• Isaac: “If you’re reading a story where you’re not seeing in the first six to eight paragraphs, a diversity of viewpoints about the issue that they’re covering, that’s a really good signal.”

Isaac advises intentionally seeking counterarguments to challenge preconceptions, which helps develop a more nuanced understanding of complex issues.

• Isaac: “When you have a really well-rounded view, almost always the issue is going to be more nuanced than you think.”
• Isaac: “Most of the big stuff that we fight about in our country… is not actually black and white.”

Mónica and Isaac discuss the merits of watching the videos of a speech or news event before reading the opinions of others about that speech or event. 

Isaac references a study from “More In Common” that asserts that Democrats and Republicans actually don’t know very much about each other’s actual views. 

• Isaac: “The thing I always ask people is like, why do you think if you’re a Democrat that you know who Marjorie Taylor Greene is, but not the moderate Republican from Utah or why if you’re a Republican, do you think you know who Rashida Tlaib is? But you can’t tell me who like the moderate Democrat in Maryland is. It’s because your side wants you to understand and identify the opposite party as, you know, the people who hold the most extreme, far left, far right views. And that’s a big problem that we have.”

Thank you to media partners Deseret News and KUOW.

Sign up for the Braver Angels Election Day Initiative 

Isaac and Mónica share the inaccuracies of considering any group of people a monolith who all vote, think, or act the same way. 

• Isaac: “It’s just never simple and we all want things to be simple, but it’s not.”

Mónica asks how listeners can know when they’ve researched enough about an issue.

• Mónica: “As I reflect on it, I think sometimes my goal in finding more commentary is not to learn more about the situation or to inform myself more. It becomes I want to see the people who I think are at fault. I just want to see more people attack them. Just give me that. Give me that. It’s feeding something in me. And I’m like a shame to say this out loud. I think this is not an uncommon experience.”

Isaac describes an issue that Tangled ran into with finding non-partisan language to use surrounding immigration. 

Mónica asks Isaac why people should choose to be informed and well-balanced on the issues when they know who they want to vote for.

• Isaac: “I hold a great deal of weight in the fact that I am living in a country and a place and era where I have the freedom and the right to do that and that resonates with me deeply. I mean, I speak about issues I care about because I’m grateful for the fact that I can. A lot of people live today in 2024 as unbelievable as it sounds in places where it’s not possible or where there are serious repercussions for speaking your mind. And I think just like as an act of gratitude and respect for that freedom it’s something that’s worth doing and worth engaging. So I understand needing a break, especially if you feel like you know what you need to know. And I actually encourage people to take those breaks, but I definitely don’t think anybody should totally disengage because it’s a privilege and it’s also really important to be able to articulate, you know, your worldview and to to live a certain value set or moral set that you believe in and you can’t really do that if you just turn the blinders on.”

Supporting Partner: Let’s See Labs

Sign up for a Braver Angels National Debate

April and Mónica reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of Reds and Blues.

Mónica and April Lawson talk about impactful moments from the interview, including the moments that Isaac and Mónica acknowledged that they sometimes research in order to affirm their judgement toward a figure they dislike. 

April highlights how reds’ skepticism towards media can be a strength, but sometimes can be over indexed to only trust one source.

• April: “I think that skepticism is really important, but you can’t take it too far.”

Mónica acknowledges that Blues fail to acknowledge that some people’s truth is based on personal stories and emotional appeals rather than facts, and that is a valid form of truth.

Mónica discusses the isolating effect of modern media consumption and the need for real, interpersonal conversations to reach deeper truths.

• Mónica: “We get to truth through each other… not through stuff, not through media, but through each other.”

Mónica and April suggest strategies for how to not lose your mind while taking in the news, including balancing perspectives and reframing why people on the other side want to share their perspectives with you. 

• April: “I actually think it’s important both to understand what the truth is… but also to understand what other people are hearing.”

Mónica wraps up the episode.

• Mónica: “Our reactions to each other’s opinions always reveal something. And maybe as this election unfolds in all its seeming chaos, Keeping that in our minds can keep us from losing them.”

Featured Song: “We’re All…” by Susanna Laird 

Episode Credits.

(music under)

Mónica Guzmán:

What if a big part of the solution to our media problems in this country is right under all our noses?

Isaac Saul:

Both the consumer and the news producers share responsibility in this. It’s probably a closer to even split than a lot of people want to admit.

Mónica:

And then, we think about what the divisions in our media might reveal about the bigger divisions underneath everything.

April:

Part of the point of this podcast and part of the reason I’m invested in this project is because it is saying, let’s go talk about that other thing. If that’s really what’s at issue here, let’s talk about that.

Mónica:

All that and more is just ahead.

(music out) (theme music up and under)

Welcome to A Braver Way, a show about how you can disagree about politics without losing heart. I’m Mónica Guzmán, your guide across the divide. And I’m here to help you hear and be heard by people who confound you. Across this country, we are proudly conservative, liberal, independent, or just ourselves. And we don’t want to be at war here. We want to be at home. So strap in. ‘Cause it’s time we learn how to turn up the heat, turn down the fear, and get real about things that matter with more of our fellow Americans than we thought possible.

(music out)

Hey y’all, welcome back to another episode of the A Braver Way podcast. This little package of audio that is just one of oh so many things you could be checking out about the election right now. There’s the campaign news, for starters, what the candidates are doing and saying just as soon as they do or say it.

There’s the polling data, which writers use to make breathless guesses to a big question, who will win, that no one can actually answer before November 5th. There’s the reporting on the issues, which can leave us feeling super informed or kinda confused. And there’s the commentary. So. Much. Commentary.

From the left, the right, the everywhere. Some of it, mind blowing. Some of it, let’s be honest, nowhere near worth the priceless minutes we give it. And you know, it’s interesting. Across the political divide, it seems like no one agrees on which sources or stories help us make the most good sense of all things politics.

But everyone agrees that the giant formless beast of a thing we call “the media” deserves a big chunk of the blame for how dysfunctionally divided we are and a big chunk of the responsibility to fix it. Is that fair? Meet me for coffee or a drink and we could debate it for a while. Trust me. But, in our effort to earn a precious slice of your attention today, I want to propose something more challenging, and I think a lot more useful.

I want to ask what each of us can do when we dip or dive into media that could move the needle even a bit on a problem we all want to solve. And I want to do that by posing a question. An urgent question that we don’t ask often enough. How can you follow election news without losing your mind? (music under) Or at the very least, without making an awful problem worse for the country or just for yourself?

Fair or not, “the media” does have a pretty bad rap when it comes to political polarization. So it’s not easy to spot someone from “the media” who people on both sides might really trust to give some pro tips on political sanity. Thank goodness, then, for Isaac Saul. Isaac is a long-time national politics reporter and the founder of something called Tangle News.

That’s a national politics driven news outfit that over the course of its five years has managed to draw a true mix of loyal readers with different political leanings. Here’s how it breaks down. Of its 140, 000 subscribers. Roughly 40 percent self-identify as liberal, 30 percent self-identify as conservative, and the rest say they’re independent or outside the left-right binary.

How did this happen? Here’s Isaac.

Isaac:

I would say the most fundamental thing is that we represent a wide range of views in the content we produce. And when people see themselves represented in the news, it makes it easier for them to consume ideas or arguments or facts that they might not otherwise want to hear.

So, our format’s really the special sauce. It’s you know, explaining a story in really neutral language and then explicitly sharing arguments from the left and from the right about that story. And then I share a lot of my opinion, which creates, I think, a level of transparency and trust and all those things play into it.

Mónica:

There are so many good critiques out there of the structural problems in the news industry, and what journalists and news organizations can try to do about them. But since we’re focused not on them, but on us, what we the people can do to better receive our esteemed fourth estate, I asked Isaac where he thinks the responsibility lies for pushing our media ecosystem in the direction we want it to go.

Isaac:

I absolutely think that both the consumer and the news producers share responsibility in this, and I think it’s probably a closer to even split than a lot of people want to admit.

The obvious thing to say is that news outlets, a lot of them are built and structured in ways that create bad incentives. So, If you’re a business that survives on advertising revenue, the best way to make a lot of money is to get a lot of hits on an article or to get a lot of people tuning into your television show.

So when the news becomes entertainment, when it relies on ratings, when it relies on traffic in order to make money, there are natural organic incentives that come out of that. On the other hand, my friends often say things to me like, why do you guys report so much on Trump? Why do you write so much about Joe Biden’s, you know, declining mental fitness? Nobody, all the, all these stories are exaggerated and yada yada yada. And my answer is always, if you go to the homepage of your favorite news site and there’s an article about a new healthcare bill that passed that’s saving, 50 percent of Americans a thousand bucks a month. And then there’s an article about Donald Trump having an affair with a porn star, which article do you click? And most of them will laugh and then concede that they clicked the article about Donald Trump. And I say, okay, great. So you just sent a signal to that news organization that their consumers and their readers want more of that content. 

So every time you’re clicking into an article, every time you’re sharing it, every time you’re talking about an article, you’re promoting it in a way that is literally giving that news organization money. And if that’s not the kind of content that you want to support, that you want to see more of, then you shouldn’t do that. And if you really genuinely do want, you know, more policy discussion or more level headed politics or whatever else it is, the best way to get that to happen is to send signals to our news organizations that you want more of that content and they will receive it. They track that stuff diligently because their entire business model, you know, depends on that to survive. And I don’t think enough news consumers really understand that.

Mónica:

I think one of the questions that is really challenging and in part, because I don’t think that we’ve really asked it in a substantial way as a society is: How can an American who wants to stay informed about the election without fueling polarizing flames in themselves or others, tell the difference between election media that’s going to be helpful toward that goal and not helpful toward that goal?

So I’m going to just throw that question out to you. I know you have a whole lot of things and see what comes up. What’s the first thing that comes to mind?

Isaac:

I would pay attention to how certain things are making you feel. I think If you are reading a story where the headline doesn’t quite match the first few paragraphs like, oh, I thought this story was going to be a little different or it seemed like maybe this was more serious, then that’s a really good kind of spidey sense alarm of oh, I just got got with a little bit of a misleading headline, something that was maybe a little sensationalized.

If you’re reading a story where you’re not seeing in the first six to eight paragraphs, a diversity of viewpoints about the issue that they’re covering, that’s a really good signal. Really good reporters and good journalists and good editors, in my view, will publish stuff where, you know, if it’s a story about a bill that Republicans are trying to stop or Democrats are trying to pass in Congress, you will have a helpful, informative quote from an expert representing two opposite viewpoints in the first quarter of the article. If you read for 12 paragraphs and it’s just Democrats trashing something Republicans did, and then there’s two sentences about how Republicans responded, and then it goes back to that, you’re reading something that’s constructed in a way to inflame partisan tensions, or that’s only giving you half the story, in my view. 

And then I guess the third thing I would say is trying to read the original story, like the source story. I think one thing that a lot of, even regular news consumers, maybe don’t understand is typically one news organization breaks a story. And when you’re a news organization that breaks a story, you’re really careful with the language you use, how you explain the thing you know and the thing you don’t know, because there are all sorts of editorial standards, but there’s millions of other news outlets that aggregate content, not unlike how Tangle does from these primary sources.

And in that aggregation process, they can change the story and they will take certain elements of the story that fit their political narrative and agenda, and they will center those parts of the story and their own reporting. So I encourage you, if you’re reading something and two sentences in it says, The New York Times first reported this story, to just stop reading what you’re reading and go read what The New York Times published.

Mónica:

Oh, fascinating. Right then and there. Yeah. So I noticed you, you mentioned that when you read and notice that there aren’t multiple perspectives, it’s really only one perspective, and they’re thrown in the other, you said, that’s half the story. And it seems like more partisan media has its place. And a lot of folks do like to just go all in on their own side. But then I wonder if the obligation in a way, or at least the strategy becomes, now go look for the other half.

Isaac:

Yes, definitely helpful. I would even put it in more direct terms where if you are reading a story that is like about the Springfield, Ohio controversy with like allegations, Haitian migrants were eating pets or whatever. And you read this original story or you’re reading a story and you leave it feeling like, Oh my God, I can’t believe Haitian migrants are actually eating people’s pets in Springfield. I would literally go Google “Haitian migrants are not eating pets in Springfield”. And then read articles that come up in that search. And, very intentionally engage the counter to the view that you are left with. I do that all the time.

Mónica:

Wow.

Isaac:

If I am, if I’m reading a story that’s about whether Israel should respond in X, Y, Z way, and I find the story really convincing, I will intentionally search for stuff that is the countervailing view to that perspective, just to balance out my own view or to challenge it. And sometimes I’ll read the other thing and go, oh no, the original story I read is way more convincing, and this is not a compelling argument. But oftentimes I’ll be like, very moved by the other piece in a way that kind of draws me back towards the center.

In terms of how it makes you less crazy, I would just say, it’s not even about making you feel 

less overwhelmed. It’s just typically when you have a really well-rounded view or well-rounded perspectives on an issue, almost always the issue is going to be more nuanced than you think, which probably is going to make you hyperventilate a little bit less about it.

Most of the big stuff that we fight about in our country, we fight about because it’s not actually black and white. That’s just like the harsh reality is, issues like abortion or trans issues or race. They are complicated issues that impact people in really complicated, different and nuanced ways. And the reason we fight about them is because it is not simple. I mean, there are all sorts of things that we don’t argue or fight about because they’re not that complicated.

Mónica:

Yeah. So, we had a prior guest on this podcast, Shira Hoffer, and she said something simple and I thought, resoundingly true, that to be part of a conversation, if you want to be part of a conversation, you have to know what other people in the conversation are saying.

But as a corollary to that, you can’t then be manipulated into believing that they’re saying what they’re not saying. And it certainly feels like our wide open, pluralistic, anything goes media market, you will find some things that are so exaggerated that you spend too much time in it, and you’re just not actually going to know what other people are saying. You’re going to learn some projection of it, and it’s just not going to be real. 

There’s something that I’ve developed as a tip, and I wonder if, I don’t know if you do this too, which is, if I see a headline that’s about last night’s debate, or this speech that Trump gave, or this thing that Kamala Harris said, instead of reading that analysis story, I will go to YouTube and I will find that speech. I will watch the debate. And I’ll share why I think that might be important. But again, I really want to hear from you on this. Which is that It seems like media is not just about informing, it’s also about opinion forming. We end up forming our own opinions based on this swirling vortex of information and commentary, so might there be a way to take a little more control over how you are going to form your opinions? So rather than jumping into the analysis piece of the debate before you’ve watched the debate, well, that’s gonna start to bias how you watch the debate when you do watch the video of the debate. Thoughts?

Isaac:

Yeah, I think it’s a great tip. I am oftentimes going to the source material in the same spirit. I know some people don’t have the time to sit down and watch an hour and a half of the debate. And if you don’t have that time, I would say the best thing you can do is to just vary and diversify the sources where you’re getting your recaps and information from, because you’ll notice very quickly that they’re reporting on different elements of the debate. But for sure, 100%, I endorse that as a primary strategy.

If you miss some kind of news event to wait until you consume the actual event itself, if you can before just consuming the analysis. And I just want to say really quickly about the way we misunderstand each other. That what you’re articulating is not a theory, there are studies that have proven this time and time again where if you ask Democrats about views that Republicans hold, they don’t know them. (music under)

And the same is true in reverse.

(music up and under)

Mónica:

The study Isaac is talking about here is from an organization called More in Common. And here’s a finding that he’s referencing. When the survey asked Democrats what percentage of Republicans believe that, “properly controlled immigration can be good for America,” they guessed that 52 percent of Republicans believed that.

But the real answer was 85%. That was a 33 percentage point gap between what Democrats perceived in our political information landscape and the reality. Now, when the survey asked Republicans how many Democrats disagree with the notion that, “most police are bad people”, Republicans guessed that 48 percent of Democrats disagreed with that. The actual answer was 85 percent. That was a 37 percentage point gap between what they thought was real and what was actually real. In both cases, even people on one side who consumed lots of news and information just plain missed the truth about people on the other side.

(music out)

Isaac:

So, we fundamentally don’t understand each other.

I mean, there’s been all sorts of different nomenclature and language that we used to talk about this. But the thing I always ask people is like, why do you think if you’re a Democrat that you know who Marjorie Taylor Greene is, but not the moderate Republican from Utah? Or why, if you’re a Republican, do you think you know who Rashida Tlaib is, but you can’t tell me who like the moderate Democrat in Maryland is.

It’s because your side wants you to understand and identify the opposite party is, the people who hold the most extreme far left, far right views. And that’s a big problem that we have.

Mónica:

Yeah, absolutely. I try not to get too outraged about things, but I do sometimes get outraged that with all this media, we appear to become less informed about other people’s perspectives.

(music up and under)

This season, we are proud to be partnering with two fantastic media organizations to help us reach more listeners like you. KUOW is Seattle’s NPR affiliate station founded with the idea that everyone should have free access to honest, fact checked information. Deseret News is a multi-platform newspaper based in Salt Lake City, committed to providing thoughtful reporting and insightful commentary from the Intermountain West. Help us by helping them. Learn how at kuow.org/brave or deseret com/subscribe. Thank you, Deseret News and KUOW, for helping us create bridges between communities and A Braver Way listeners everywhere.

This election season, Braver Angels is doing something no one has done before. We’re sending Red/blue pairs of Americans to polling places across the United States to show that we can, and must, stand side by side no matter who wins the presidency.

With around 100, 000 polling sites across the country, it’s easy to take part. Grab a friend from across the political aisle, or a relative you banter with at Thanksgiving, and join us at the polls to add your voice to the call for a braver stronger politics we deserve. Don’t have a pair already or want to meet someone new? We will work on finding you a match. Find the link in our show notes or head to braverangels.org/electionday to sign up.

(music out)

Back to empowering the listener and the news consumer. You can do something in your own behavior. We had a listener from our text line say “I have a careful plan.”

They said, for example, “I don’t read political stories that say that something may happen in the future.”

Isaac:

That’s a good one.

Mónica:

If they see that something may happen, they’re like, I’m out. What do you think is going on there?

Isaac:

Actually, we at Tangle, we have been for a long time, I almost hesitate to say this because I’m scared somebody will steal it. But we’ve been kicking around the idea of doing a “What Happened to X?” series, which is basically just, revisiting all these stories that got pumped up in the news about this big event that was going to happen. And then it just never came and everybody moved on. There are a lot of really good examples of it.

I think it was two years ago, I think when we were being told that, the shipping crisis was going to be so bad that nobody was going to get their Christmas gifts and the holidays are going to be ruined and then it was just like, Christmas happened and everything was fine. Just all moved on and nobody talked about it ever again. We’re like, Hey, do you remember what happened? And that kind of stuff. So I love that rule. I’ve never heard anybody suggest that before. I think that’s a good policy as a consumer.

Mónica:

Yeah it’s interesting. So you wrote a few months ago, about how Tangle would cover the 2024 election and you wrote what Tangle would do and you wrote what Tangle would not do. And among the items in the list of what Tangle would not do was this we aren’t going to be derisive about American voters Or talk about groups of people like they are monoliths. Black voters don’t all experience our country the same. The Rust Belt isn’t a bunch of uneducated, out of work, white people. We’re not going to reduce Trump and Biden at that time, Biden, supporters to the caricatures you may see on TV. Turn this back to the consumer. It sounds like something to watch for.

Isaac:

Yeah. I mean, look, when you go out and read the news and consume the news, I would pay really close attention to the kind of tropes that you see on repeat and question them. I mean, you can’t talk about black voters as a monolith. I mean we right now are hearing all about the Hispanic vote in this election and Hispanic voters encompass everybody from Mexican Americans in Arizona to Cubans in South Florida.

And I’m just like, Those cultures and political views.. 

Mónica:

So different.

Isaac:

They are so different 

Mónica:

As a Hispanic voter. I will tell you. 

Isaac:

Yeah, it’s incredible. So be very careful of the tropes. Run from them. I think also the flip side of that is, be interested in the micro stories. I love profiles of voters in small towns because you’ll hear them say things that sound really contradictory, but like those people exist. They make up a big chunk of our country. It’s just never simple. We all want things to be simple, but it’s not.

Mónica:

Yeah. Nuance cannot be avoided if you’re trying to understand the world to some degree. 

Earlier, when you and I talked, you had said something that seems so self-sabotaging for a journalist. You said, it’s okay for you not to look for something else to read. So the reader question, I guess the consumer question from that is, how can a person who wants to be informed without losing their mind, know when they know enough?

Isaac:

Wow. Yeah. That’s a really good question. I don’t think I have a great answer for it except to say, and I don’t have a great answer for it because I think it really depends on the person and it depends on what they want to get out of their news consumption. There are people who become interested in a topic and then they, you know they uproot their entire lives in order to go back to school and study it and become a historian in that topic.

So like it could be infinite, the, what you need to know or want to know could be a sort of never ending life project that, you know, I’m not aware of. I would say, for most people studying an issue or learning about an issue is something that like, if you have a normal life, I would not spend more than a couple hours a day on. I mean really, I don’t think that it’s healthy.

And if you spend that time on one issue and you feel like you still don’t know enough, like you can come back to it tomorrow. And the world’s not going to change because your opinion wasn’t fully formed on a Tuesday. I hate to break it to you, but that’s just that’s the reality of the situation.

Mónica:

As you were talking, I remembered so many times when I have found myself in a rabbit hole chasing more information, more commentary about something outrageous that’s been going on. And as I reflect on it, I think sometimes my goal in finding more commentary is not to learn more about the situation, or to inform myself more. It becomes, I want to see the people who I think are at fault. I just want to see more people attack them. Just give me that. Give me that. It’s feeding something in me. And I’m like ashamed to say this out loud. I think this is not an uncommon experience.

Isaac:

Totally. No, I would say it’s a common experience. I see it in how I, you know, feel too. Eric Adams just got indicted.

Mónica:

New York’s mayor.

Isaac:

New York’s mayor. I’ve been around politics for a long time. And I had this vibe that like, I think this guy’s corrupt and he’s got some weird connections and I just, I didn’t like the vibe. And I noticed, you know, in the last couple of days, I’m spending a lot of time consuming Eric Adams indictment content. And it’s just like, I have bigger stuff, we’re not even covering the story in Tangle, but like I’ve read the entire indictment and I’m, I’ve read 12 articles about it. I’m just like, Oh, this feels good for me because I feel vindicated. ‘Cause I said that there was something wrong with this guy and now it’s all coming true.

Mónica:

Wow

Isaac:

And oftentimes those motivations are really transparent. And it’s, I’m impressed that you can recognize that in yourself. I think a lot of people can’t do that, but yeah. It’s definitely a real thing that’s there.

Mónica:

Yeah. It seems like, if it’s, I told you or if it’s, I want to see other people attacked. Maybe that’s not going to make you necessarily a more informed voter and great citizen. So if you do notice ulterior motives maybe it’s time to stop. 

So, you’ve written and spoken several times about how folks who read Tangle will email you outraged about language that you have used that they really believe is the wrong language for a particular issue. But of course, you hear contradictory complaints from both sides because language has become that battleground. So give us an example of one of those threads.

Isaac:

Yeah, so the classic example that I always talk about is on immigration which is basically like, we have two different ways of describing people who have crossed the border and come into our country illegally. And one way that’s very progressive oriented is to call them undocumented immigrants. And one way that’s very, conservative oriented is to call them illegal immigrants or illegal aliens. And so in our work, we might say, there were 80,000 illegal immigrants who had border encounters. And we’ll get all these emails from liberals saying, no person can be illegal. I’m canceling my account. I’m unsubscribing. You guys are clearly you know, in the tank for Trump and all right, we’ll call them undocumented immigrants. And then all the conservatives are like, it’s so obvious that you guys are liberal. You’re calling them, you know, undocumented immigrants, yada yada. 

Like, all right that didn’t work either. We went through this whole editorial process to neutralize our language and to make it approachable for as wide a range of people as possible. So on that particular issue. We fell back to what is a legal term, which is unauthorized migrant. And it accurately describes what we’re trying to say. It doesn’t dehumanize the migrants and it doesn’t soften the issue if you’re somebody who really cares about illegal imigration. And so we’re like, all right, this is good. And we’ve been using that language in our stories for almost a year now, maybe more than a year. And I’ve not gotten one email about it.

Mónica:

Wow.

Isaac:

Truly not one email about it. And so there are ways to attack these language barriers, if that’s what you want to call it, that I think satisfies both sides. And doesn’t sacrifice the truth in a way that can be really helpful.

Mónica:

I mean it’s just.. Boy language is hard. Language is really hard.

Isaac:

It’s really hard.  It’s one, I tell. People always think in the newsletter, the podcast that doing the mini editorial is the hardest part. And I’m like, telling people what I think in an unabashed, straightforward way is the easiest part. The hardest part is writing the introduction. It’s writing a story and really neutral language in a way that we are being balanced with the facts, we’re being balanced with the quotes we use. And that’s the most difficult thing we do on a daily basis, in my opinion.

Mónica:

So where can readers meet you halfway? And by you, not just you, Isaac Saul, but all journalists and media people who are really trying to write that introduction, to speak in a way that can be heard by many sides, you’ll still have some triggers, right? People will still be triggered. Where can the consumer meet you halfway on that effort?

Isaac:

Yeah, I actually gave a Ted talk about this, which I encourage people to go listen to because I think to date it’s been the place that I’ve like best put together a coherent string of thought about this and a philosophy. But the consumer side of it is just going into things with the idea that people are typically not trying to offend you. They’re using the language that’s resonant for them. And if there are trigger words, or if there’s certain language that you hear, that sets off an emotional response in you, just try your best to let it go and see past it and hear what they’re actually saying. Not an easy thing, not trying to frame it as an easy thing. But we are all capable of it. And I think it’s like super important to engage in these conversations in good faith.

Mónica:

One last quick question for you, Isaac. Some folks listening might not have the problem of too much news, but the problem of almost too little. That why would I even, eh, maybe I know who I’m going to vote for. Forget it. Why should I even follow any of this? It’s just going to make me crazy. So, what would you say to them?

Isaac:

Yeah. I think for me personally, I hold a great deal of weight in the fact that I am living in a country and a place and an era where I have the freedom and the right to do that. And it, that resonates with me deeply. I speak about issues I care about because I’m grateful for the fact that I can. A lot of people live today in 2024, as unbelievable as it sounds in places where it’s not possible. Or where there are serious repercussions for speaking your mind. And I think just as an act of gratitude and respect for that freedom, it’s something that’s worth doing and worth engaging.

So, I understand needing a break, especially if you feel like, what you need to know. And I actually encourage people to take those breaks. But I definitely don’t think anybody should totally disengage because it’s a privilege. And it’s also really important to be able to articulate, you know, your worldview and to live a certain value set or moral set that you believe in. And you can’t really do that if you just turn the blinders on.

Mónica:

Thank you, Isaac. Well said. All I will let you get back to this crazy election cycle. 

Isaac:

Yeah.

Mónica:

Thank you again for taking time for this. It’s been fantastic.

Isaac:

Thanks for having me. Always glad to do it.

(music under)

Mónica:

If you boil it way, way down, the news offers answers to questions and the most news offers answers to burning questions, which around the election right now. are getting pretty searing hot. Who should win? Who’s actually going to win? What are the candidates saying now? And now? And now? And what are we everyday Americans supposed to make of it all?

Talking to Isaac, I thought about what it feels like to try to cool the suspense of presidential election seasons with a fire hose of information. How do we choose what to believe? So I found it to be a case of excellent timing that USAFacts just put out a new edition of its annual “State of the Facts” report to help me shed a little more light on just this question.

USAFacts is a nonpartisan nonprofit that’s out to guide people through the maze of public data from the nation’s more than 90,000 government entities. They do that by compiling the data and organizing it so it’s accessible and understandable to everyone. Not just policy wonks, not just journalists, everyone.

USAFacts is also a proud sponsor of A Braver Way. Now the State of the Facts report leans on a kind of data that’s familiar to all us election news consumers. polling. Except, instead of asking Americans how we make political choices, USAFacts partnered with the A.P. Norc Center for 

Public Affairs Research to ask us, just this summer, how we decide what information about the election is true.

The first finding that stood out, is that that is not easy. One third of respondents said it was straight up difficult to know if information about the election is true or not. With even more of them, nearly 40%, saying it’s toughest to know if what the candidates are saying is true or not. 

So when people do consider a piece of news to be factual, what helps them decide to trust it?

A big majority of respondents, 75%, said transparency is an important factor. When a story explains how the information in it was gathered. Another important contributor to trust is when a story gives more than one viewpoint on its subject. I, of course, am a big fan of that one. Isaac probably is too. Along with 64% of the survey respondents. 

Oh, and remember when Isaac gave that tip about going to a search engine and typing in th oopposite of something you heard about to check if it’s true? Search engines are already our first line of defense. 40 percent of respondents say they go straight to a web search when they want to fact check what they hear about the election. The next most popular first stop is cable and network TV news, though only for 9 percent of respondents. Just 7 percent go first to social media, 4 percent to a friend or family member, and less than 1%, ha! ask an AI chatbot. 

Whatever information we trust is going to help us make up our minds about an issue. And on most issues, the State of the Facts survey found, we rely on facts more than values by far. But there are two contentious topics in American politics where just about half of respondents this summer said they relied on values more than facts to figure out what they think about it.

Can you guess what those two contentious topics are? If you said abortion and LGBTQ issues, ding ding ding, that’s a fact. Thank you USAFacts for the quick polling plunge. Now, back to the episode.

(music out)

Speaking of taking regular breaks from the news, you might think that would be next to impossible for a political journalist during an election.

But Isaac does take breaks, and he takes them pretty seriously. He doesn’t read or watch any news after 6pm every night except Sundays. On Saturdays, he unplugs from the news completely. The whole day. Even if something big is going on, or his phone is blowing up with notifications. Why? “I would go crazy otherwise,” he told me.

That’s a fairly universal strategy to consider, setting rules around how much time you want to give to the news. But what about how much trust you want to give it? We know that can vary a lot by political leaning out there. So how do these strategies tend to sit with liberals and conservatives who can see the same media completely differently?

I joined my friend and colleague April Lawson, a political red to my blue, to find out.

(music out)

Mónica:

Hello, April! How are you?

April Lawson:

Hi, good! It’s good to see you.

Mónica:

Yeah, you too. We are getting into it. Just rolling up our sleeves and talking about “the big bad media” that everyone blames for zee polarization. But we’re talking about it from a different perspective. Instead of the media and the journalists, many of whom do their darndest in this climate to help illuminate all kinds of things. We’re talking about us, the news consumers, the news readers. All of us. So let’s start with favorite takeaway. What stood out to you?

April:

I think my favorite was, honestly, it was a confession for both of you, where you admitted that sometimes your actual motivation for following a story is, “I want to see these people be wrong”, “show me even more evidence that they’re wrong”. And then he said the thing about the mayor of New York and how he recognized, wait a second, I’m still looking at this and it’s been two hours. Hang on. And I just like, I felt like that was so human to, for both of you to like, say wait, I see what’s happening here. My lizard brain is definitely the one that’s driving this right now. How about you?.

Mónica:

I had exactly that same moment. That moment was so interesting because it happens to all of us. It’s just, there’s no invitation to notice when the motives have changed.

April:

And it sort of, it takes some humility, right?

Because you have to notice that you’re doing something that’s maybe not ideal. And if you’re somebody, which I think a lot of our listeners are, who thinks of themselves as somebody who’s like trying to be part of the solution, you’re even more disincentivized to notice when you’re like no, no. That’s me being part of the problem. That’s what’s happening right now.

Mónica:

Yes. So, let’s get to the first question. No, the second question, which I found really challenging for this one.

April:

I did too. All right,

Mónica:

As a red, you’re red, and as a blue, I’m blue, what do you think your side is good at or not so good at? When it comes to the strategies brought up in this episode to follow election news without losing your mind.

April:

Yeah. Well, I mean, the first thing I want to say on the red side is just that so you and I have both worked for media organizations. I worked for The New York Times for David Brooks and Ross Douthat for five years. You started an entire newspaper and you’re more of a journalist. And I used to get frustrated when I was working for the Times with people critiquing the media all the time, because I was like, do you know how hard this is? And also if you want to see something different, this is capitalism guys, then demand something different. And so part of me was just wanting to defend my coworkers, who I did see slaving over trying to get facts right. Now, I also believe that The New York Times is biased in a liberal direction and saw that all the more when I worked inside it.

So I’m not saying that’s not true, but what I like about this is that it feels like asking people to take some personal responsibility for the thing that they are experiencing. Because, I like it when people take responsibility for what’s happening to them.

Mónica:

Yes! Singing my song, love it.

April:

Yeah, and, we reds ask for that often. And I’m glad that as a blue you are finding that appealing in this case.

We will try to woo you to that perspective on more issues.

Mónica:

We’ll see how it goes.

April:

Yes, yes, yes. But anyway, my basic thought is that reds do a good job with skepticism. In college and shortly thereafter, I was very interested in China and spent some time over there. And one of the interesting things in China, right, is that there’s such total censorship and information is controlled very carefully and overtly. And I read an opinion piece that has always stuck with me by a young Chinese young adult who was saying we’re actually better media consumers than Americans, because we know that we’re being manipulated. 

Mónica:

Wow

April:

And so we read everything with a lens of the government wants us to believe this, this group wants us to believe this, but they start with the assumption that there’s an agenda, basically, that there’s motivation, and that was fascinating to me, and I think that the red side is particularly strong on that. And the, I feel like reds emphasize the “what’s your source?” in a different way than blues. Reds emphasize the trust aspect of this. And I feel like blues are more likely to be like, look at this large institution, which produced these numbers. That is what is trustworthy. And reds are more likely to be like, even institutions have incentives. 

The thing I would say they do less well is I think they actually. We. I should say we, sorry. I’m saying negative things. Now I want to distance myself from it, honey

Mónica:

No, exactly! I love that! We are so transparent, if you say…

April:

Those other people! 

Mónica:

Yup. We…. 

April:

Okay, we, fine. Yes, I think that we I think we over indexed on skepticism and trust a little bit. And sometimes are like, the only person who’s right about anything is Tucker Carlson. Or the only person who I should listen to at all, who’s not giving me fake news is this person. And basically, I feel like. It’s a needed corrective. I just think sometimes we take it too far and that the real goal actually is to listen to all the perspectives. I think that skepticism is really important, but you can’t take it too far.

Mónica:

Yeah. I’ve heard humility defined as being the right size in a given situation, which I love. And now I’m doing the same thing with trust. That you’re tempted sometimes to trust maybe too much and you’re tempted sometimes to trust maybe too little. What is the right level of trust is probably one of the key questions for every human being who is wrestling with how to follow the news.

April:

Yeah

Mónica:

What do I trust? For what reason but it can be, like you said, it can jam you up, right?

April:

That’s a good frame.

Mónica:

Right? So I found this question extremely difficult because this happens a lot, because I just think everybody sucks at this. Everybody, myself, everybody sucks at engaging with media in turbulent times.

All that said, one thing that I wrote down that I do think is worth mentioning. I think blues are bad at seeing the value in non factual truth.

April:

Ooh!

Mónica:

…In the media.

April:

I appreciate that.

Mónica:

So, meaning, and maybe some folks are going, non-factual truth? What value does it have? And it’s a good question.

April:

What does that even mean?

Mónica:

It’s a good question. But I really do believe that at the end of the day, it’s all people. People’s perspectives, people’s attitudes, people’s beliefs are what make the world go round. And when we believe that we are 100 percent rational creatures, only motivated by logic, we can believe the myth that what makes the world go round is just facts.

And so therefore, people who aren’t just looking at facts, you know, are missing things, and so then come all the judgments about from blues to reds, who pick different media that many blues just don’t even recognize as being in any way remotely valuable, because what they see is anger and rage. And on a prior episode, you talked about the anger and the rage being a problem on the right. I’m not justifying it, in the media.

But there are things being discussed that are not rooted in, here’s a statistic, and here’s exactly what the statistic means. And there’s discussions rooted in, here’s what we’re concerned about, and what we’re worried about, what we need to talk about. That gets to the truth of people’s perspectives, that is really valuable.

So I think blues do ourselves a disservice, when we start to believe that the only valuable media, is media that is always very calm. That is always very dry, or very long, and beautifully researched. And hey, I feel like I’m betraying my own. I’m a journalist. I love beautifully researched things. I guess what I’m saying is I think that blues use a judgment of the media on the right as a reason to judge the people on the right for having conversations based on stories and articles that just seem to not be attached to, what they recognize as the trustworthy type of truth, which all comes down to facts.

April:

I have a, yeah. Okay. So first of all, I really appreciate you offering that frame. It’s interesting. It’s a similar, like, How much is too much? Because it’s about emphasis on fact versus personal story. You can over index on things, right? And obviously, fact-based stuff is good.

Mónica:

It’s very good.

April:

It’s very good.

Yes, we all agree it’s good.

Mónica:

Yes, and now I feel like, oh no, I should have started with what blues are good at, because I was gonna say blues are really good, I think, at putting a lot of value on the things that have a lot of really good evidence. So yeah, now you can see I should have started with that because I didn’t, I don’t want to sound like someone who doesn’t like facts. Like no, I think blues are extremely frustrated with this particular difference, right? It’s like, how is all, how are these heaps, how’s this heap of evidence not enough? At least that’s the way we see it. And I think in many situations that is a frustrating question I share, that is very confounding.

April:

I hear that. And I, it does sound exasperating if you like, think that there is an obvious set of facts here and it is still being ignored. And I feel like part of the point of this podcast and part of the reason I’m invested in this project is because it is saying, let’s go talk about that other thing. If that’s really what’s at issue here, let’s talk about that. So I really appreciate both of those.

Mónica:

Yeah, I like that. I appreciate how you did bring up skepticism as a strength first. You know? Because yeah, there’s a lot of context where skepticism is a real strength.

(music up and under)

Before we move on, I want to tell you about one of our supporting partners. Let’s See Labs is a leadership development organization working to bridge divisions within teams by embracing creative polarity. Through a combination of discussion groups, short films, and private reflection, they activate empathy and curiosity to leverage interpersonal tension that brings teams together. You can learn more at letsseelabs.com. To learn more about Braver Network and how your organization can join the movement for civic renewal, go to braverangels.org/abraverway.

(music change and under)

Get ready to experience an exciting and, yes, fun way to dig into controversial issues through our Braver Angels debates. Our special parliamentary format encourages good questions, ensures civility and disagreement, and strives for learning and better understanding for everyone. You’ve never seen a debate quite like this. Head to braverangels.org/events, select national online debate in the event category, and register for our next debate. We’ll see you there.

(music out)

I think that it is a real tragedy that thanks to wonderful advances in communications technologies, media and our interaction with media is happening more and more on a one to one level. 

April:

Hmm

Mónica:

It’s me and my smartphone, and the only conversation that’s happening as I’m consuming it is with myself. Which is a difficult conversation to be challenged by or aware of. So I think about, the fifties, the sixties, families sitting around the television, maybe somebody reacting to something and someone else going, “what do you mean, junior, what is that face about?” We were able to do it socially. And I’m not saying let’s go back to those days of media at all. There’s a lot of things wrong with those days of media. We always march forward in more ways than not. But I think that the fact that it is so isolating is a real problem for all the strategies that Isaac brought up.

April:

Yeah. It’s interesting to me that you say, this is more isolated because, I mean, it’s literally called social media, right? Like it’s how does, I see the scoffing!

Mónica:

I don’t buy it.

April:

I feel like it’s almost like it is social, but it’s like selective social or like it’s biased social or can you untangle that for me?

Mónica:

Social didn’t used to be a thing. When you looked at words on a screen. It just wasn’t a thing. We’re not co-present with people. We’re not observing them. The pieces that we have evolved to create society and create community, a lot of those things, I think, are turned on when we’re with each other. So no, social media is not social.

April:

Interesting.

Mónica:

We just tell ourselves it is because there’s so many voices. But I think most of those voices are reactive and they come from our constant looping within ourselves. Our constant looping within ourselves. We’re mostly talking to ourselves, and then everybody else is a projection that we’ve put, who we imagine them to be. Most people don’t even put their real picture up anymore. And I’m hearing myself sounding very cynical about this, so I feel like I should… I’m over indexing on cynicism right now.

April:

But you’re also, but again I would theorize that cynicism is coming from a feeling of trying for a lot of years to figure out how to get truth to people and having it just bounce off them, like Teflon.

Mónica:

Absolutely. I’ve come to believe, oh, I know you’re helping me realize this, that we get to truth through each other.

April:

Oh yeah.

Mónica:

Through each other. Not through stuff, not through media, but through each other. When media can represent us responsibly and really well, which it often does, then yeah, that’s better. That’s closer. But mostly we get to truth through each other. 

All right. So third question, April, where does the driving question show up in your life and how do the ideas in this episode inform it? So the driving question being, how can you follow election news without losing your mind? So I’m sure some of our listeners are going, “Oh, Móni, April, they must have this all figured out.

They’re now going to tell us how they…

April:

If only. If only

Mónica:

But even Isaac, like all of us struggle with this.

April:

I answered the other two first. Do you want to go first? I feel like you were getting in that direction with your last answer, too,

Mónica:

Yeah. I think the overall way it affects me is just the more that people, the more that people around me and me read election news. in a way that does make us lose our minds, the less capably we will hold this country together. I don’t think media is a sidebar. I don’t think the way we read media is a sidebar. I think it’s really central to how we think. Media is not just news and information. Media is influencing how we think, what we think of other people, what we think about our relationship to our country. And so the ability to not lose our minds is mission critical, as far as I’m concerned, to my life, because I would like this country to remain sane.

April:

Mmmm. Do you feel like, just to ask the question really bluntly, do you feel like you’re able to watch election news or keep track of it without losing your mind?

Mónica:

Sometimes. Sometimes. But only sometimes. Which is why I really have reduced. If you were to look over my shoulder while I was reading the news 10 years ago, it’d be like 20 times more time than I’m spending now. And that, I think that’s been helpful.

April:

Right. Yeah, it’s all thresholds, isn’t it? I feel like I’m working on accepting that I’m never gonna feel like I’m doing this right. And that like, all you’re gonna do is try. And maybe you are able to feel like you’re doing it right sometimes. 

I basically, I’m not exactly proud of all this because I feel this is my work, my vocation. I should be someone who’s thought about this very carefully and has this whole set of strategies… 

Mónica:

Oh, no, no, no,no. It’s all good.

April:

…and implements them perfectly. But I really don’t, this is going to sound crazy, but there’s, I read in a, I love personality tests. Love them.

Mónica:

Oh yes, they’re fun.

April:

And yeah. Yeah. There was a personality profile at one point that had something to do with news and it talked about how for some people, and I’m this kind of person, you feel responsible for it. And so one of the reasons that I don’t read that much news is because I feel like I should fix it. If something is wrong, I feel like I need to like, change everything and fix it. And I realized that’s nuts. And you’re just one little human, all that, but that is actually my reaction. And so it’s exhausting to read about all the problems because I’m like, I’m not doing enough on Israel. I’m not doing enough on climate change. I’m not doing enough on abortion. So that is a weird part of my personality that I haven’t figured out how to manage. 

But here are some things that could be useful to people. There are two categories here. One is how I try to listen and how I try to listen to news. Like I’ve spent my whole life needing to move between worlds. And so my little inner anthropologist shows up easily and is like, huh, this is interesting. These people have this belief system that leads to this social construct or whatever. I’m making fun of myself a bit here, but it means that you can look at stuff and not have to take responsibility for it, or feel this or feel that like it just like calms all that down for a second. And I can see enough to take in the information and then decide what to do with it. The second thing is just that I try to listen to things with both ears. So like the “red ear” and the “blue ear”. So…

Mónica:

I like this.

April:

…If there is a thing that’s happened, or if I’m like on a day where I want to feel connected to what’s happening in the world. I will check The New York Times and Real Clear Politics or Town Hall. Real Clear Politics is an aggregator that I like that has a red slant, but it captures a lot of different sources, including some progressive ones. But mostly if you want to know what it sounds like in red world, Real Clear Politics is a great place to go because you get a bunch of different slices of red world all in one spot. 

Mónica:

Good to know. I didn’t know that.

April:

Yeah. 

Mónica:

Okay, I’m gonna, I’m gonna look there more.

April:

Yeah, love it. Town Hall then is a little more like red meat, this is what it sounds like if you’re in a Fox News living room kind of.

Mónica:

yeah.

April:

And I actually think that it’s important both to understand what the truth is about a fact, but it’s also important understand what other people are hearing, right?

Mónica:

Yes, exactly! Exactly!

April:

And so I want both. 

Mónica:

Yes

April:

Because then you’re going to hear what emotions are being elicited, like what is the feel that is coming up for them? Yeah.

Mónica:

Ahh! No, I think you’ve just helped me identify one of the reasons I can’t stay away from The New York Times. Because The New York Times is excellent at capturing the mainstream mood of the left. Absolutely excellent.

April:

That’s right.. It’s very good at that.

Mónica:

And it is important, as a member of the left, for me to also know it does feel important.

April:

Yeah.

Mónica:

Do my feelings have any connection with other people who are like me in some ways? Man, you just helped me nail it. Maybe it’s not so bad 

April:

No

Mónica:

..that I feel pulled. You know what I mean? Even though I think it has gone too far many times. 

April:

Sure. 

Mónica:

Just ask my family. But but the same probably goes for many reds and Fox News. If your question is, how are people of this persuasion feeling? Like a glance at the headlines of foxnews.com or time on the channel is going to give you a lot of data, a lot of information. And so if we’re here to understand each other and those are the places that have shaped themselves into being places where people see them, see themselves reflected. Then they’re going to be really good shortcuts for understanding something about other people. And I’m only realizing this now just because you said that. Oh yeah, of course.

April:

And it makes sense, Móni. You’re a people person. And so you want to understand not just what is the actual fact on the ground. You want to know, like, where are the humans, like, how are they experiencing what is the.. So I want to say one more thing, which is just, this is actually how this shows up in my life.

Those are my strategies for myself. The way that this shows up in my life, the most honestly is with regard to other people. And I think about like how to deal with election news without losing your mind. I don’t necessarily do that well myself. But the primary thing where I feel like it’s oppressively present in my world is the people around me rant about it.

They like talk, they don’t just talk about it. They like go on diatribes. But there are a couple of things I’ve learned here. So my reaction generally, especially with my mother and one of my close friends who’s on the left. They both have a tendency to, I don’t know, it feels like they will talk for a long time about whatever liberal thing.

And I’m, because I’m a red, my initial reaction to that is usually, do you have to keep attacking? I would take it as at me.

Mónica:

Yeah.

April:

And as she was like why don’t you believe this? Why don’t you agree with this? Why don’t it was about her saying, but you’re not on my side. You should be on my side. And it took me a long time. She actually. It was only after some conflict about this that she eventually said something, I think offhandedly, that was like well honey, I just don’t have that many people that I talk to about this stuff. And so part of what I’m doing is just thinking it out loud, like airing it out myself. And all I’m looking for is for you to listen. And I was like, oh!

Mónica:

What a revelation!

April:

And the same thing has just happened again. Like I just a week ago had this experience with a friend of mine who’s very liberal and will say, Trump orders this. And I don’t understand how that, and he was like, I just I just. I trust you. And so I’m just saying all this stuff because I can’t say it at work. And it’s just, what’s in my head and all I really want is for you to listen. And so just learning that you don’t necessarily, sometimes what people need is just all this stuff has been building up inside them because of what they’re taking in and they just need to say it out loud to someone who’s listening and then lots of other stuff can happen. They can, you can have a conversation about it. You don’t have to have a conversation about it, whatever. But like that’s actually what’s often needed.

Mónica:

And just the act of hearing yourself work through something is just super valuable to anyone. I know that with my own parents who are politically very different from me, saying things out loud to them is me listening to myself in a very unique way. 

April:

Hmm

Mónica:

It’s only by saying it to them that a certain degree of skepticism turns on for me. Their different beliefs are present with me. When I then exercise my own thinking out loud in front of them, I am skeptical in a way I can’t be without them.

April:

Wow.

Mónica:

I find this, I find what you’re saying really important. And it kind of ties back a little bit to what I was saying, that one of the tragedies here is that a lot of people read news

April:

Isolated

Mónica:

.. just them and their phones, which means there’s no one Who do you talk to? Who do you turn to and talk to? And when you only have yourself, you ruminate and you dig into things instead of having that audience that can help you process in a different way that is necessary. That we have evolved to make the most of. 

April:

Yeah. 

Mónica:

We’re missing that. We need to give that to each other. Wouldn’t that be great?

April:

Wow. Yeah. That kind of blows my mind, because what you’re saying is that not only am I being just a sort of, arbitrary sounding board for the person, particularly because in both cases they know well that I don’t agree with a lot of what they’re saying, but that it may be that saying things to me specifically helps them process in a way that they could not,

Mónica:

Yes.

April:

If they were listening to… Because I’ve always assumed that what they want me to be is like, yeah, that is stupid. Yeah, the, it is this.

Mónica:

What an insight. 

April:

But maybe that’s not what they want.

Mónica:

Maybe we think we’re looking for affirmation. When what we’re looking for is just to be able to play it out with some other person in the back of our minds, as we say.

April:

Yeah. 

Mónica:

That’s it. 

April:

And maybe a skeptical person. 

Mónica:

A skeptical person. 

April:

I, wow. 

Mónica:

I, yeah, why not? It actually makes sense. If we it’s all the research shows. That’s a really good way to sharpen your own thinking.

April:

Huh. My ability to follow election news without losing my mind just increased.

Mónica:

Yay!

April:

Thank you Móni.

Mónica:

Everyone out there, have more conversations about this, please. This is great. 

April:

Yeah, for real.

Mónica:

Yeah. All right. Well, thank you, April, as always, and good luck staying sane out there.

April:

Thank you. You too, dear.

Mónica:

All right. 

April:

Bye bye.

(music under)

Mónica:

When Isaac was talking about the hardest things he works on at Tangle, he said something that stayed with me. He said that the toughest thing to put together in each day’s newsletter is not the part where he gives his opinion on the issue of the day. It’s the newsy part, where he and his team set out to describe whatever’s going on in our politics accurately and in language they believe all sides can actually hear.

(music changes, under)

And that’s the most challenging part of making A Braver Way, too. You have no idea the debates we’ve had, the sticking points, the places where one side sees a barrier to bridging the divide like this, and the other side sees it like that, and it seems like everyone picks one or the other interpretation.

But when you see both interpretations and then some, you can’t do that anymore. That’s what I’ve learned. You can’t just pick a side. You have to do something else. You have to try to wrestle these disparate things that so much out there keeps so separate into one space. Even if pieces of what you’re putting in that space contradict.

(music out)

Because that contrast? I’ve come to think that that contrast is itself telling us something true that’s worth facing. So here’s to looking at the contrasts, this election. Whether it’s in the news media, or in your conversations with people who cast their votes for the other side. The different language we use, the different stories we lean on, even when our conclusions turn out to be wrong for our country and communities, our paths to those conclusions always reveal something. Our reactions to each other’s opinions always reveal something. And maybe, as this election unfolds, in all its seeming chaos, keeping that in our minds can keep us from losing them.

With that, I’m ready to send you brave souls back to your worlds with a song. It’s called “We’re All” by Susannah Laird, and it was an entry in the 2023 Braver Angels songwriting competition. 

Take a listen.

(music up- lyrics)

We’re all trapped in our bubbles. We don’t listen to each other. I gather all my evidence, filtered by allegiances…

(music under)

Mónica:

Thank you everyone so much for joining us here on A Braver Way. If this episode sparked questions, comments, stories you wanna share or hear, you can always reach us at a braverway@braverangels.org or join our text line to check in throughout the season from your phone. To get started, just text the word BRAVE to 2 0 6 9 2 6 9 9 5 5. 

A Braver Way is produced by Braver Angels and distributed in partnership with KUOW and Deseret News. We get financial support from the M. J. Murdoch Charitable Trust and Reclaim Curiosity and count USAFacts as a proud sponsor.

Our senior producer and editor is David Albright. Our producer is Jessica Jones. My disagreement buddy is April Lawson. 

Our theme music is by the fantastic number one Billboard bluegrass charting hip hop band, Gangstagrass. 

A special to Ben Caron, Don Goldberg, and Gabbu Timmis, Katelin Annes, and Emily Provance. 

And to everyone who’s been leaving reviews of this podcast, thank you so much, that’s helping more people discover it and we’re so grateful.

I’m your host and guide across the divide, Mónica Guzmán. Take heart, everyone. Till next time.

Braver Angels is the nation’s largest, cross partisan, volunteer led movement to bridge the political divide, and the organization that produces this podcast. And here’s the exciting part. You can join us in our mission to overcome toxic polarization and strengthen our democratic republic. Head to braverangels.Org/join to become a member and support our growing movement. And let them know that A Braver Way sent you.

(music out)