Prepare yourselves. We’re coming back in full force next week with our first case study in the series!!
But first, this episode on how easily a casual conversation can be derailed by a single polarising phrase or term. How do you talk your way out of it calmly? It’s something we’ve been trying to explore in this week’s episode of BTB:
Lately, we’re all about putting this BTB thing into practice. You could say it’s the mindset we’re in as we prepare all of the case studies we’ve got coming your way very soon.
This week, Eunice put BTB to the test with her Uber driver in New York City. In less than an hour, Rafael, a Colombian immigrant, talked to Eunice about everything from the weather to the struggles of being an “outsider” in the United States.
Also just a quick reminder to please help us out with our email campaign! You can find the easy-and-quick template we made right here. And we’d be eternally grateful if those of you with iPhones would please rate & review our podcast on iTunes. Thanks!!
And last but not least, here’s this week’s happiness initiative: http://oomk.net/
That really is the question. We ask it almost every day. Not whether or not to make this podcast. We love this podcast. But we often find ourselves wondering if we’ve taken the ‘see the other side’ concept too far. What do you think?
Email Campaign: As we said in the episode, we’re trying to expand our audience so that we can diversify the voices that we feature in our show, and so that we can get a wider range of feedback from listeners. If you like what you’ve heard so far and feel comfortable doing so, please tell a friend! We’ve written up a template for you to use to make it super easy. Thank you so much for your support!!!
Hope you’re doing well!
I just wanted to tell you about this cool new podcast I found. It’s called Breaking the Bubble, and it’s all about bridging the ever-growing gaps in our media landscape.
Two Northwestern University graduates – Eunice Ro and Priyanka Tilve – started the project initially as a response to polarisation in the US after the 2016 presidential election. But given that Eunice lives in Paris and Priyanka lives in Doha, the podcast has expanded out to international themes and more sociological analysis.
So I just thought you might be interested in checking out their work. You can find them on Facebook or the iOS podcast app – or follow them directly on their website to get reminders whenever they post a new episode.
Eunice and Priyanka are always looking for feedback and episode suggestions, so feel free to message them on any of those platforms or email them at firstname.lastname@example.org!
Thanks, and hope you like the podcast as much as I do 🙂
Priyanka and I are in the same city for once and we’ve spent all of it working on new content and brainstorming for BTB. And… eating a few (dozen) pastries.
This week’s episode is slightly different–we’re updating you on some of the longer-term projects we have in progress including:
-Several case study episodes like a dialogue between us and a conservative blogger (Aussie Conservative)
-Expanding our reach and virtual bubble
-Finding new sources and stories from you, our awesome listeners 🙂
So far in our podcast, we’ve been encouraging people to break out of their bubble through discourse, good questions, and a careful awareness of bias in media and how we consume news. But we’d be remiss to not point out the obvious bias we often see in ourselves when we’re seeking out information.
This week, we tackle the idea of “confirmation bias” at all its levels– in how we ask questions and sometimes skew the responses we get, in how we think about what is “given” and what we can question, and even how searching for positivity can result in being happier.
Listen to “Grey Swans” (and how we adapted Nassim Taleb’s concept of Black Swans for our title) :
We see them more and more these days. And not just because people are posting more often, but because their reach is getting amplified with social media shares and “viral” statuses. These cathartic, explanatory, uplifting, or sometimes ranting social media posts are making their rounds on newsfeeds around the world.
This week, we take a look at some statuses we’ve seen in our feeds to better understand what pushes someone to share personal details or stories on a platform that is very public.
In the process, we found that posting things to social media sometimes reinforces your echo chamber, but it can also break through to bipartisan discussion or invite the ever-feared “Internet Trolls” (dun dun dunnnnn).
Listen to this week’s episode on “Posting and Low-Blows and Trolls, Oh My!” :
How would you explain to a child how to walk? Or explain what exactly it is you’re doing when you speak? Often, the things that come most naturally to us are the most difficult to explain to others. And sometimes, our jobs – our professional skills – can fall in that category.
This episode touches on experiences we discussed way back when BTB was just a concept. And when we heard about our friend Zaid’s experiment on expertise and the takeaways he was finding, we decided now was the time to synthesize our own anecdotes and come up with ways to “check your expertise.”
As an overview, here are some general Do’s and Don’t’s when it comes to engaging in conversations where expertise level might be unequal:
-Don’t be condescending
-Remember that your expertise had to start at the beginning at one point too
-Remember your “audience”
-Try to avoid jargon and be patient
-Is the topic someone might feel judged or self-conscious about for not being aware of?
-Start by acknowledging that you might be covering something he/she already knows and that you can speed up if needed
-As the learner, think about how to make the information stick in a way that works for you
-Use other examples or metaphors to draw connections (like Mean Girls! That always works for Eunice!)
Yes, we realise this title sounds just a tad nerdy. What can we do? We’re journalists who like numbers (gasp!!!!).
But really. Numbers can lie just like people do. And it’s important to be able to recognise when a specific stat has been manipulated to tell you just one side of a story. We hope today’s episode will help with that. Let us know what you think!!
We’ve both been big fans of The Daily Show for years, and back in college, we often found ourselves relying on Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert for more candid, unfiltered versions of the news.
But that in itself is a problem. And as the political climate around the world has become more charged, it seems ‘unfiltered’ is a thing of the past.
All media today seems to have an opinion. And that combined with the stress of gaining viewership means TV news channels are getting more and more sensationalised, often following the path of comedy shows and late night programming.
Does that simply make the news more interesting? Or is this a dangerous trend?
This episode was super fun to research, discuss and edit because of all the examples we’ve sprinkled throughout. Check it out and let us know what you think!!
We also mentioned a specific back and forth between an O’Reilly Factor segment and a response from the Daily Show, as well as what we thought would be comparable precedent.
Daily Show Response:
Previous Daily Show segment in the same vein:
Reverse Engineering Stats! We got a lot of positive feedback on the How to Question Everything episode so we decided we’d take it one step further… How to question the statistics and numbers you see cited in articles. More specifically, how to reverse engineer them to see if you’re being misled.