April 23, 2025 • 36 mins
In this episode, investigative journalist David Zweig discusses his new book, 'An Abundance of Caution,' which critiques the pandemic policies that disproportionately affected children. He emphasizes the importance of evidence-based decision-making and the media's role in shaping public narratives during the crisis. Zweig reflects on his experiences as a journalist and the need for humility and honesty in reporting, especially in the context of public health. The Karol Markowicz Show is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Wednesday & Friday.
Buy David's NEW Book HERE
#DavidZweig #pandemic #children #evidencebasedmedicine #medianarratives #policydecisions #publichealth #AbundanceofCaution
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hi, and welcome back to the Carol Markowitz Show on iHeartRadio.
Study out of London last week found something called the
dating app effect. The New York Post reports this occurs
when dating app devotees experience such a severe chemical imbalance
that it resembles a chronic stress disorder and addictive behavior.
(00:25):
When a user gets a match or engagement, this messes
with the brain's reward system pathway, eventually resulting in neurochemical dependence.
While this initial dopamine dump might seem like a good thing,
the uncertainty of getting matched prompts the user to adopt
seeking behavior so they can get their fix, much like
a gambling addict playing the slots, per the study, and there's.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
No win here.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
Unlike when you're playing the slots, there's no amount of
likes or connections that you could walk away with and
feel like you succeeded. The study also found that dating
app usage can paradoxically torpedo one sex drive as well
by messing with testosterone levels, a side effect that affects
(01:12):
both sexes. A match can cause male sex hormone levels
to spike by fifteen to twenty percent in twenty minutes,
while getting ghosted or unmatched can send testosterone production plummeting
by ten to twenty five percent. The latter plunge can
in turn cause symptoms ranging from decreased energy to reduce libido.
(01:34):
One doesn't have to get rejected to have match induced
mood swings. Constantly awaiting feedback puts the user in a
state of anticipatory anxiety, where they experience elevated levels of
the stress hormone cortisol for several hours, which can disrupt
the body's hormone and thyroid production. I think a lot
(01:54):
of this stuff is so obvious if you think about it.
We're feeling fake emotions right when we're on the internet,
and as you're scrolling potential matches on these apps, these
fake emotions are kicking in. You're like feeling like people
like you, that you have options, But then your body
(02:15):
kind of gets that nothing is actually happening, that you
might feel something real, but no actual connection is occurring.
I talk a lot on here about getting off the phones,
but getting off the dating apps has to be a priority.
I'm sure there's a way to use the apps in
a healthy way, but I'm also sure that that very
(02:39):
rarely actually happens the reaction your body and your brain
have to being on the apps. I think those reactions
are actually holding potential daters back. Last summer, I challenged
my single listeners to try having an analog summer and
try to meet someone in person. I know several listeners
(03:01):
wrote in to say they tried it but didn't make
a love connection. I would say it takes time, and
if you're single, don't want to be try getting off
the apps and make dating something that you really only
do in the real world and take your time with it.
Maybe you won't meet your person right away, maybe it
(03:23):
will be harder to meet people. I understand that having
a catalog of people to scroll through on your phone
is the easier option here, but I think that you
will feel better in and of yourself and I think
that will lead to better options dating wise. Try it.
Thanks for listening. Coming up my interview with David Zweig.
(03:45):
But first, Israel is still under attack. Missile fire has
resumed from Israel's enemies, terrorists who seek utter death and destruction.
Here in America, we can't imagine what it's like to
live in content and fear like this. But for the
people of Israel. It's all very real every single day.
(04:06):
Please join me and show the people of Israel you'll
help protect them in this time of attack and uncertainty.
And one of the best ways to do this is
by giving to the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews.
Your gift today helps provide security essentials like bomb shelters,
flack jackets and bulletproof vests, armored security vehicles, ambulances, and
(04:29):
so much more. There is no better time to give
than right now, during the Passover holiday, when we celebrate
Israel's historic deliverance and birth as a nation. Give a
special Passover gift today and help protect the people of Israel.
All eight eight eight for eight eight IFCJ that's eight
(04:50):
eight eight four eight eight four three two five, or
go online at SUPPORTIFCJ dot org one word support IFCJ
dot org. Welcome back to the Carol Markowitz Show on iHeartRadio.
My guest today is david's Wig. David is an investigative
(05:13):
journalist and author. His new book, An Abundance of Caution
is out now by it. Hi David, how are you?
Speaker 2 (05:20):
I'm great, how are you doing that?
Speaker 1 (05:21):
So nice to have you on. I am a huge fan.
You did such amazing work during the pandemic, and I
thought you were undervalued. Really, I thought you should have
been far more famous. And I hope this book is
a giant bestseller because you are terrific. What made you
write this book five years later?
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Well, the process has been going on a long time, yes,
so it's only coming out five years later. I would say.
What prompted me to start on reporting on the pandemic
and then ultimately what led to working on the book
was my own experience. I watched my kids at home,
(06:02):
and I described it in the book as withering away
or excuse me, wilting, almost like a plant, you know,
without sunlight. And something just seemed off about this. It
didn't make sense. From early on, we knew the data
that kids were not at high risk. They also were
not transmitting the virus more than anyone else. Closing schools
(06:27):
just didn't seem like the right area for society to
be focusing its interventions in order to try to slow
the spread of this virus. It seemed like the one
area that was perhaps the least sensible to focus on
became the area of the most intense focus. And that
(06:51):
sort of set me on a path to trying to
understand exactly what was happening.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
What do you want people to remember most about that time?
Speaker 2 (06:59):
I think I want people to and I would sort
of split it into different groups, But I think what's
really important is that our society, as everyone knows, is
stratified in a lot of different ways. And the thing
that I talk about a lot in the book is
how the people who made the policies, how that impacted
(07:27):
everyday Americans, and in particular I focus on, though it's
not exclusively to them children, is that the people who
made these policies, in many instances, we're leading very different
types of lives than millions and millions of Americans. I mean,
at a base level, they were adults, and an adult
is able to do zoom for work, just like you
(07:50):
and I are talking remotely right now, in a way
that that children cannot. The assumption, you know, children are
not small adults. And then but pulling the lens act
beyond that sort of you know, primary point is the
fact that the people who work in you know, the
NIH and in public health and sort of broader professionals
(08:10):
in the medical field, these people generally are quite well off.
They generally have a comfortable home to live in, and
they are able to do their work in a manner
that that doesn't put them, it doesn't require them to
be in person. A lot of them, right, and so
it's quite telling how those people. And there's a philosopher
(08:36):
of medicine named Eric Winsburg who I interviewed for the book,
and he said, you know, it's quite telling how well
those people did during the pandemic relative to so many others.
And I think that's the main thing that I want
people to be aware of or to remember about that time.
That while if you're some corporate attorney or some other
(08:58):
white collar worker and you're like, yeah, it kind of
sucked having my kids home from school, but it wasn't
that big of a deal. That's for you and for
your family, but you're not thinking about the millions and
millions of children who did not have that same circumstance,
and by the way, including children who came from well
(09:18):
off backgrounds but maybe had all sorts of different learning
challenges or social challenges right where their experience was different.
And that's what was lost in so much of the
sort of media coverage of what was happening during the pandemic,
and I think lost on the experts themselves.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
To say that one of the things that impressed me
about that time. So I would say that for our family,
it was an amazing time. We loved having our kids home.
It was a cozy, beautiful time, and everything was really nice,
and I could see why people leaned into it. But
I knew that my kids aren't the only kids in
the world, and that the things that we were able
(09:59):
to prove for them isn't what other families might be
able to provide. I grew up pretty poor in Brooklyn,
and I knew what people in my old neighborhood were
going through. But I did see people, you know, even
on x and in media who didn't even have kids,
standing up for people who had kids, and I thought
that that was kind of one of the few positives
(10:22):
that I saw. I could think of a bunch off
the top of my head. I mean the Instagram, I
mean the Twitter account Red Stea's Steve Miller was passionate
about reopening schools, and he doesn't have kids, so it
was doable. People just some people just chose not to.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
That's right, and kind of the broader point that I
spent a lot of the book looking at the science
behind this. In part the book is a social critique
and trying to understand how society as a whole and
the political class make decisions. But a lot of the
book I really go deep, the layer of layer into
(11:01):
the strata of the earth, basically trying to understand how
we think about evidence in a very sort of like
epistemological kind of way. What does it mean for something
to be true or not true? And these kind of
very abstract questions were a big driver for me because
(11:22):
I think it's fascinating when we really stop to think, well,
what is evidence we kept hearing about? And this is
rightly so a mocked expression now, but you have to
follow the science, but what is the science? And science
also doesn't tell you what to do. Science may give
you information, but that's very different from values. And this
(11:43):
kind of brings us back to your first question again.
We let's even set aside that the science was incredibly
poor on a lot of this the evidence, but even
if we were to grant that it's accurate, that still
doesn't tell politicians about what to do. Andrew Klalm, the
former governor of New York, repeatedly kept saying follow the data.
(12:04):
You have to follow the evidence, follow the science. But
that means nothing. It was a nonsensical statement that does
not tell you what policies to put in place. The
policies are based on what you value. And again, if
you're a poor kid in the Bronx and your family's
value maybe for you to be in school because you
(12:26):
are a football player and this is your one chance
to get possibly get into college, Well they canceled the
football season. Now you're out of luck. And this happened
to countless kids. Now, the argument, which is a straw
man that you'll hear and that we've had heard for years,
is well, it's better than being dead. But what I
(12:47):
show in the book, and I don't think people have
really shown this before, is how schools had absolutely nothing
to do with the overall case rates. And there is
a wealth of data, and this is really important, Carol.
At this point, this is not a Monday morning quarterbacking
that I'm doing. This is not an after the fact.
(13:08):
I tried very hard throughout the book, almost without exception,
everything I talk about is evidence that was available at
the time. It's basically kind of a TikTok chronology as
you're going through that first year, and I show that
the evidence was there at the moment, but our health
(13:29):
officials and the broader medical establishment ignored or dismissed this
evidence that was available.
Speaker 3 (13:36):
Right.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
One of my favorite moments of the Follow the Science,
Follow the Data was when schools had opened in New
York City. They opened late late September of twenty twenty,
and then in November build Aeblasio closed them again because
the COVID rate, the COVID percentage for the city had
(13:57):
reached a certain percentage. I forgot, I think it my
three percent. But basically what that meant was that three
out of every hundred people who took the COVID tests
at facilities were testing positive. So if you had a
day where two were testing positive were four, it just
it made no sense. But then the best part to
me was Cuomo got on and he said first of
(14:20):
all that the Bill Deblasio cannot close schools. Only he
could close schools, and he could open schools, and he's
the only one in charge. But also he had different data.
He didn't have the same numbers as Bill Deblasio did,
which was like, wait, how's that even possible? How do
you guys have different numbers? Stuff like that I think
went overlooked, even though that to me was a very
(14:40):
kind of pivotal point where people's eyes were open. But
data even isn't always the same.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
Yeah, I love that you touch on this point, and
I talk about this a lot in the book where
I look at that. Yes, as you noted, you know,
different facts and figures are going to come to different people,
including even you know, different politicians and health officials are
going to have different information at any given moment. And
it doesn't mean that it's wrong to have some sort
(15:09):
of benchmark, you know, like we need some sort of
parameters to operate within. So I don't necessarily fault officials
for saying, hey, this is the line that we're going
to go toward. However, they needed to be honest that
this was made up.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
That line made no sense, and that line fictional line.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
Right, this was made And again I don't think it's
wrong necessarily to have some sort of target. Otherwise it's
it's hard to corral society in a certain direction. But
you need to be honest and in fact, and they
were the opposite of honest. They said, this was the science,
this is what And it's interesting I show how different areas,
different regions within our country and different countries, everyone had
(15:50):
wildly different benchmarks. They were all over the place because
everyone had one different data oftentimes and two different ways
of interpreting it about what they felt was quote unquote safe.
Is it three percent, is it five percent, is it
twelve percent? Of you know, some various rates of prevalence
within the community. There's no correct answer to this, Yet
(16:13):
over and over it was presented to the public that
there's sort of like very bright red line about this
is what's appropriate in this area, and anyone who disagreed
was a complete jerk. You know what, are you a moron?
You're trying to do your own research. But the reality
is they had no idea what they were talking about.
(16:34):
Yet it was and this is a large part of
the book that I try to talk that I talk
about is the narrative formation and how the media very
much so worked in conjunction with the health authorities and
generally with democratic politicians that instead of this sort of
(16:54):
classic role where media is supposed to be skeptical of
claims by those in power, whether it's a politician or
whether it's a health official. Instead of that, they basically
just acted as an amplifier. And I give all sorts
of examples where you can see how articles in the
New York Times and elsewhere they kept quoting various people
(17:16):
saying things, but they never provided any evidence or any
proof behind what they were saying. And this is how
the narrative calcified for much of the public was that
schools in Europe when they opened, well that's because Europe
is different. And they made up this long list of
contrived reasons. Yet there was never any evidence behind these reasons,
(17:38):
and if you question them, you're an asshole.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
But yeah, and you want teachers to die, obviously, well
people would die.
Speaker 3 (17:45):
But again, the media failed in its most basic obligation,
which is to actually question what people are telling them,
and if they don't question it, then to at least
do the research themselves as journalists to find out what
is the evidence.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
Yet I give example after example after example of where
our most prestigious news outlets in the country just simply
acted as a pr arm of many of these officials
and their agencies, just simply repeating what they said right
without asking for or seeking on their own the actual
(18:22):
evidence behind these claims, and what I do in the book,
it's essentially a case study, is show one by one
by one how each of these claims was false.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
We're going to take a quick break and be right
back on the Carol Marcowitch Show. So, you know, I
was a columnist for many years before the pandemic, and
I had some level of success, but that time really,
you know, increased my prominence. My career definitely took off
during those years. I became somebody who was writing about
(18:56):
it often and people enjoyed that and that kind of thing.
You were, thank you, thank you, but you were more,
you know, in the mainstream media. Did your career suffer?
Did you take hits for your coverage?
Speaker 2 (19:10):
No, I don't think my career suffered, and in fact,
I think I did quite well.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
But I think you did quite well. But I'm just
wondering if you lost any opportunities for being right too early,
which is a common thing, you know.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
I would say I was astonished at the sort of
rejection or dismissal some of the early work I was
doing by large outlets with whom I had worked with
in the past.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
This is what I meant it had happened to you.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
Yeah. Look, as a journalist, you should just expect most
of the things you pitch are going to be rejected.
No one owes me anything With that said, I know
enough about what you know, what works and what doesn't work.
And these are places I had written for in the past,
and I knew I wasn't pitching, uh, you know, an editorial.
(20:03):
I wasn't pitching you know, Oh, this is my opinion
on this. I had a compendium of evidence behind anything.
And that's why ultimately I was able to write for
some of these more mainstream outlets. And it's funny there
were a number of other journalists in the sort of
contrarian space, if you will, but who are writing for
more either right leaning outlets or just you know, for
(20:25):
their sub stacks or blogs, and they kept asking me,
how are you doing this? How are you getting this
stuff through?
Speaker 1 (20:30):
Yeah? And it was impressive, it really was. I remember,
I mean I remember several of your pieces that I
thought like, oh, how did you get you know, the
Wired piece, just you know, Wired mystic that was those
were roundbreaking pieces and they were in kind of again
mainstream outlets, which was unique.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
Yeah, and I thought about this a lot, you know,
in part just on my own and because so many
other journalists and people have mentioned this to me and
asked me about it. And the answer I can come
up with is that I always came with evidence. And
while most editors are not interested in going against the narratives,
thank god, there are some who actually really care about, well,
(21:14):
what's the truth? What's going on here? Is this, even
though this goes against the sort of establishment view, is
this a well supported argument? And that's the theme of
my book, is that we need evidence behind claims that
we make. And I give lots of fun examples throughout history,
(21:35):
in particular in medicine, but this happens in a variety
of fields. But they give lots of examples about how
o our intuition, including the intuition of experts about what
is true, is often wrong. And this is the foundation
of what's known as evidence based medicine, where you have
this hierarchy of evidence and you have to actually look
at what do the data show, what is the actual
(21:58):
evidence out there, and how does that compare versus what
do you think is going to happen in time and
time again throughout history, including right up to today. Our
intuition is often wrong, and nevertheless, the media and many
of the health experts in America kept going with their
(22:19):
intuition about something, their assumptions, and so for me, I
found that frustrating and I found it offensive. And the
thing that I always do with my articles and what
I try to do in the book is that, And
much to my editor's dismay, I mean, I have there
are hundreds of endnotes with citations in the book, hundreds
(22:40):
upon hundreds of them, because I tried to not make
any statement without providing a source behind it. Now, I'm
sure I failed in some circumstances. I'm sure there are
some mistakes in there, but anyone can see a massive
effort was made at least to provide evidence, because there
was no way I was going to criticize everyone else
(23:00):
for not providing evidence behind their claims for me to
do the same thing. And that that's sort of the
kind of like meta message of the book is really
thinking about evidence and about what is true. And it
doesn't mean we're always going to be right in the
way we put it together, but you have to at
least make an effort. And it was just so troubling
(23:20):
how the media. It's not that they had a source,
but the source was wrong. That happened plenty of times too,
and again that happens to me, That happens to everyone.
Sometimes you just misinterpret a study or you cite the
wrong thing. That's one thing I'm not I try not
to really go after people for that. What's problematic was
not even making an effort. It's this sort of expert say,
(23:42):
I think was it years ago? Trump or someone used
to always say. People are saying, people are saying, yeah,
what an ironic twist, that exact same thing that Trump
was vilified for. People are saying, you know, he's just
kind of play That's exactly what the most prestigious media
did all the time during the pandemic. Experts say, yeah,
(24:02):
they might even quote an expert, but there was no
evidence behind with that. I don't really care what this
person's opinion is on something that's actually within evidence based medicine. Physicians'
opinions is considered generally the lowest form of evidence possible.
I don't want your opinion. Show me the evidence, and
then we can talk about things and then make decisions
(24:25):
as a society based on our values.
Speaker 1 (24:29):
Right, and that also was the fact that a lot
of the experts were changing their minds in real time
and not correcting anything. One of my favorite moments was
June twenty twenty and again, I have this all like,
I'm sure you do too. And I know a lot
of people who were in this COVID, you know, fight
with us. They could recall these times and figures and
statements so easily. But June twenty twenty May Sorry, I
(24:54):
actually I might have gotten that one wrong. Might a
little later, but Anthony Falluci said, as we've been saying
all along, outdoor masking is not necessary. It was June
twenty one because it was after it was after the vaccines.
So June twenty twenty one, he says, as we've been
saying all along, outdoor masking is unnecessary. And I was like,
as we've been saying all along, Like when were you
(25:15):
saying this? This is the first I hear of. But
my kids are masking in between bites while eating lunch
on the ground outside of their schools in New York.
I mean, if you've been saying this, that message has
not penetrated. So they were changing their minds and their
opinions and not following the science at all.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
Actually, let's be clear, it's not only fine but appropriate
to change your opinion as evidence changes.
Speaker 1 (25:42):
Yeah, but be honest about it right.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
Now, exactly all along you are exactly Yeah. The defense
that was given over and over was you know, we're
building the plane as we fly it, and other metaphors
such as that. But again that was in effect a
lie because it was just always exculpatory. No matter what
(26:05):
you did, there was a get out of jail free
card that you could use. Oh, we've never experienced this before.
We never knew what was going on. But again, the
thing I show is that the evidence was there from
the beginning, and I show as time goes on the
evidence that was available and including about masking and outdoor masking,
(26:27):
there was never any evidence that this was going to
be successful. But that's not how it was presented to
the public. One of the things that I'm most proud
of is I had written a piece about the summer
camp guidelines from the CDC. Yeah, and you know, I
saw them and I saw that it included outdoor masking,
and I was like, immediately, because how do you do it?
(26:48):
I was very familiar with the data, and immediately I
was like, this makes no sense. And I had a
number of prominent people, including the editor in chief of
a Jama Pediatrics who said who were like, yes, I
will talk with you for the article on the record,
and they called it, this is draconian, this makes no sense.
Immediately Rachel Olenski was questioned about this, and very shortly thereafter,
(27:11):
the CDC rescinded the outdoor mask guidance for summer camps.
That was a moment that I was proud of, but
you know, those types of things were few and far
between to actually affect policy in that matter. And the
notion of certainty, I think is another really important thread
(27:34):
within the book that I talk about a lot. It's
it's the way that health officials and then sort of
by an extension of that, politicians, and then the buy
an extension of that, the media and the sort of
what we might call like elite society. Overall, the degree
of confidence and the degree of arrogance and righteousness within
(27:56):
which these opinions were expressed was incredibly damaging, and we
can see, you know the result of that was an
enormous lost in trust in our public health institutions. Now
part of that is, you know, I think people can
make a reasonable argument to some extent that Trump and
some others had sort of poisoned the well and this
was reactive to that. But we are responsible for our
(28:19):
own actions. Trump didn't make anybody lie. Trump didn't make
Fauci or others have a degree of confidence they should
not have had when they projected these various pronouncements to
the public about what they should and shouldn't do. And
it's so important to I hope a lesson that people
(28:40):
within media and then more broadly within the sort of
health establishment understand is that they need a degree of
humility and that I know it goes against someone's instinct,
but to be persuasive, it's actually better to be honest
and show nuance and show what you don't know. I mean,
(29:00):
that's the best rule as a writer. You know. Just
going back, you asked me about how did I get
these pieces and some of these sort of legacy media outlets,
And I think, in part I try to never overstate things,
and I try to be honest and express nuance and say, look,
here here's the evidence of what it shows, here's what
we know, and what we don't know, and ultimately, I
(29:24):
think people find that most persuasive. You actually can convince
someone of something more when you don't overstate things. And
in fact, the public health quote unquote experts did the
exact opposite of that time and again they overstated the
degree of evidence, they overstated their confidence, and conversely, anyone
(29:45):
who disagreed was maligned as a fool, as someone who
is dangerous. And the divergence between the United States and
Europe in particular regarding schools is so extraordinary, and the
idea that someone was this Republican crank for wanting to
(30:08):
model our school's policy on good old, progressive western Europe
was absurd. But that's what was claimed over and over again,
and what people believed, and what I tried to show
in the book was how and I talk about a
whole variety of countries within Europe and also outside of
Europe and other places, there was never any sort of
ideological through line between various pandemic policies in different locations.
(30:34):
So what we were experiencing in the United States was
very much its own kind of isolated experience. But yet
people just assumed and extrapolated that this was normal and
that it made sense that, well, of course the Republicans
want things to open up for the economy. No, there
were plenty of countries with a conservative government that wanted
(30:55):
everything shut down. That was the opposite, And there were
plenty of progressive countries that none of this made any sense. Now,
And the important part is that the public by and
large was kept misinformed and uninformed about what was going on.
And I give these sort of case studies within the
media about how things were framed about what was happening
out the outside the United States, and there was always
(31:18):
some sort of very soft but nevertheless definitive excuse. So
why such and such was happening and why it couldn't
happen here? All this was made up? Carol.
Speaker 1 (31:29):
It was insane. What a crazy, crazy time that we
lived through. So one of the questions I ask all
of my guests is what do you worry about? I
want to bring it back to your book, Abundance of Caution.
What do you worry about that you covered in the
book that you could see resurfacing again in our society.
Speaker 2 (31:48):
Well, I worry about I guess, just from my own
background in journalism, I worry about the media still not
quote learning its lessons. And while I'm thrilled that there's
a vibrant sort of whatever, if we want to call
it alternative media landscape, that's terrific. Substacks and podcasts, all
that's great, the legacy media still holds an enormous amount
(32:10):
of sway and power within our country, in particular with
decision makers within Washington, DC and elsewhere. And you can
see it on a whole variety of issues. But when
you become an expert on one particular issue, it then
makes you wonder about issues that you're not an expert
on when you see, oh my god, the way this
(32:32):
is framed is completely wrong. And I give a little
bit of a kind of a behind the curtain look
at what happened with some legacy media publications about how
these sort of the framing of articles was done very
purposefully to exclude or to manipulate information that they didn't
(32:54):
want that in the piece, that didn't fit the narrative.
And you can see this happening again now. And as
long as that keeps happening, we're I think we're going
to be in trouble. I think we're destined for yet
another problem. You know, in the next crisis, whether it's
a medical crisis or something else, until the people who
communicate to the public, who act as that filter. Because look,
(33:16):
most people have regular jobs. They don't have time, right
be I don't expect regular people that are going to
work each day doing whatever it is they do. They
don't have time to start reading studies. They're relying on
other people to present this information to them, and it
needs to be presented in a manner that is far
more objective than in the manner. And it doesn't mean
(33:38):
that there are mistakes or errors in an article. I
think that's often kind of the way it's described that oh,
well this is fact checked, and well everything could be true,
and at the same time the piece can still be
incredibly misleading, right.
Speaker 1 (33:54):
Yeah, we saw a lot of that. I mean even
pieces that were technically true, and a lot of them
were technically A lot of them didn't have that as
there was a lot of errors, a lot of errors.
So what advice would you give your sixteen year old self,
knowing kind of what you know now.
Speaker 2 (34:12):
I mean, outside of you know this narrow discussion, I
would say it's the same advice I try to give
myself now. I wish I had given to myself back then,
which is to be more courageous.
Speaker 1 (34:28):
Urnty pretty courageous.
Speaker 2 (34:30):
Well, thank you for saying so.
Speaker 4 (34:31):
But it still feels like it's not enough to try
to remove any semblance of concern about failure or about
what people will think about you, and to really just
have the courage to go after what you feel is
the right thing to go after.
Speaker 2 (34:53):
That's really hard to do.
Speaker 1 (34:54):
I like that. Okay, I've loved this conversation you. Your
book is fantastic abundance of caution. Everyone should go buy it.
And here with your best tip for my listeners on
how they can improve their lives.
Speaker 2 (35:09):
Well, you know, there are so many things to so
many directions to go with this, but the area that
I think I have some knowledge on is what we've
been talking about. And I would say, when you are
reading an article or watching something on TV or YouTube, whatever,
when you are presented with information, always ask yourself, is
this an argument from authority? That that means is this
(35:30):
just being told to you by someone who has a
credential or are they actually providing evidence for what they
are saying? And if you can follow that, you're going
to change how you view the world, and you will
start to see, including from media that you like and
that you favor, you will start to see how so
much of what we are told is simply arguments from
(35:52):
authority rather than the actual true information that you need
to be told. In that degree three of awareness and
skepticism will make you a more informed person in life.
Speaker 1 (36:06):
He is David's Vike. Check out his work everywhere by
abundance of caution. Thank you so much for coming on, David.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
Thanks Carol, this is great.
Speaker 1 (36:14):
Thanks so much for joining us on the Carol Marcowitz Show.
Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
Hi, and welcome back to the Carol Markowitz Show on iHeartRadio.
Study out of London last week found something called the
dating app effect. The New York Post reports this occurs
when dating app devotees experience such a severe chemical imbalance
that it resembles a chronic stress disorder and addictive behavior.
(00:25):
When a user gets a match or engagement, this messes
with the brain's reward system pathway, eventually resulting in neurochemical dependence.
While this initial dopamine dump might seem like a good thing,
the uncertainty of getting matched prompts the user to adopt
seeking behavior so they can get their fix, much like
a gambling addict playing the slots, per the study, and there's.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
No win here.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
Unlike when you're playing the slots, there's no amount of
likes or connections that you could walk away with and
feel like you succeeded. The study also found that dating
app usage can paradoxically torpedo one sex drive as well
by messing with testosterone levels, a side effect that affects
(01:12):
both sexes. A match can cause male sex hormone levels
to spike by fifteen to twenty percent in twenty minutes,
while getting ghosted or unmatched can send testosterone production plummeting
by ten to twenty five percent. The latter plunge can
in turn cause symptoms ranging from decreased energy to reduce libido.
(01:34):
One doesn't have to get rejected to have match induced
mood swings. Constantly awaiting feedback puts the user in a
state of anticipatory anxiety, where they experience elevated levels of
the stress hormone cortisol for several hours, which can disrupt
the body's hormone and thyroid production. I think a lot
(01:54):
of this stuff is so obvious if you think about it.
We're feeling fake emotions right when we're on the internet,
and as you're scrolling potential matches on these apps, these
fake emotions are kicking in. You're like feeling like people
like you, that you have options, But then your body
(02:15):
kind of gets that nothing is actually happening, that you
might feel something real, but no actual connection is occurring.
I talk a lot on here about getting off the phones,
but getting off the dating apps has to be a priority.
I'm sure there's a way to use the apps in
a healthy way, but I'm also sure that that very
(02:39):
rarely actually happens the reaction your body and your brain
have to being on the apps. I think those reactions
are actually holding potential daters back. Last summer, I challenged
my single listeners to try having an analog summer and
try to meet someone in person. I know several listeners
(03:01):
wrote in to say they tried it but didn't make
a love connection. I would say it takes time, and
if you're single, don't want to be try getting off
the apps and make dating something that you really only
do in the real world and take your time with it.
Maybe you won't meet your person right away, maybe it
(03:23):
will be harder to meet people. I understand that having
a catalog of people to scroll through on your phone
is the easier option here, but I think that you
will feel better in and of yourself and I think
that will lead to better options dating wise. Try it.
Thanks for listening. Coming up my interview with David Zweig.
(03:45):
But first, Israel is still under attack. Missile fire has
resumed from Israel's enemies, terrorists who seek utter death and destruction.
Here in America, we can't imagine what it's like to
live in content and fear like this. But for the
people of Israel. It's all very real every single day.
(04:06):
Please join me and show the people of Israel you'll
help protect them in this time of attack and uncertainty.
And one of the best ways to do this is
by giving to the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews.
Your gift today helps provide security essentials like bomb shelters,
flack jackets and bulletproof vests, armored security vehicles, ambulances, and
(04:29):
so much more. There is no better time to give
than right now, during the Passover holiday, when we celebrate
Israel's historic deliverance and birth as a nation. Give a
special Passover gift today and help protect the people of Israel.
All eight eight eight for eight eight IFCJ that's eight
(04:50):
eight eight four eight eight four three two five, or
go online at SUPPORTIFCJ dot org one word support IFCJ
dot org. Welcome back to the Carol Markowitz Show on iHeartRadio.
My guest today is david's Wig. David is an investigative
(05:13):
journalist and author. His new book, An Abundance of Caution
is out now by it. Hi David, how are you?
Speaker 2 (05:20):
I'm great, how are you doing that?
Speaker 1 (05:21):
So nice to have you on. I am a huge fan.
You did such amazing work during the pandemic, and I
thought you were undervalued. Really, I thought you should have
been far more famous. And I hope this book is
a giant bestseller because you are terrific. What made you
write this book five years later?
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Well, the process has been going on a long time, yes,
so it's only coming out five years later. I would say.
What prompted me to start on reporting on the pandemic
and then ultimately what led to working on the book
was my own experience. I watched my kids at home,
(06:02):
and I described it in the book as withering away
or excuse me, wilting, almost like a plant, you know,
without sunlight. And something just seemed off about this. It
didn't make sense. From early on, we knew the data
that kids were not at high risk. They also were
not transmitting the virus more than anyone else. Closing schools
(06:27):
just didn't seem like the right area for society to
be focusing its interventions in order to try to slow
the spread of this virus. It seemed like the one
area that was perhaps the least sensible to focus on
became the area of the most intense focus. And that
(06:51):
sort of set me on a path to trying to
understand exactly what was happening.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
What do you want people to remember most about that time?
Speaker 2 (06:59):
I think I want people to and I would sort
of split it into different groups, But I think what's
really important is that our society, as everyone knows, is
stratified in a lot of different ways. And the thing
that I talk about a lot in the book is
how the people who made the policies, how that impacted
(07:27):
everyday Americans, and in particular I focus on, though it's
not exclusively to them children, is that the people who
made these policies, in many instances, we're leading very different
types of lives than millions and millions of Americans. I mean,
at a base level, they were adults, and an adult
is able to do zoom for work, just like you
(07:50):
and I are talking remotely right now, in a way
that that children cannot. The assumption, you know, children are
not small adults. And then but pulling the lens act
beyond that sort of you know, primary point is the
fact that the people who work in you know, the
NIH and in public health and sort of broader professionals
(08:10):
in the medical field, these people generally are quite well off.
They generally have a comfortable home to live in, and
they are able to do their work in a manner
that that doesn't put them, it doesn't require them to
be in person. A lot of them, right, and so
it's quite telling how those people. And there's a philosopher
(08:36):
of medicine named Eric Winsburg who I interviewed for the book,
and he said, you know, it's quite telling how well
those people did during the pandemic relative to so many others.
And I think that's the main thing that I want
people to be aware of or to remember about that time.
That while if you're some corporate attorney or some other
(08:58):
white collar worker and you're like, yeah, it kind of
sucked having my kids home from school, but it wasn't
that big of a deal. That's for you and for
your family, but you're not thinking about the millions and
millions of children who did not have that same circumstance,
and by the way, including children who came from well
(09:18):
off backgrounds but maybe had all sorts of different learning
challenges or social challenges right where their experience was different.
And that's what was lost in so much of the
sort of media coverage of what was happening during the pandemic,
and I think lost on the experts themselves.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
To say that one of the things that impressed me
about that time. So I would say that for our family,
it was an amazing time. We loved having our kids home.
It was a cozy, beautiful time, and everything was really nice,
and I could see why people leaned into it. But
I knew that my kids aren't the only kids in
the world, and that the things that we were able
(09:59):
to prove for them isn't what other families might be
able to provide. I grew up pretty poor in Brooklyn,
and I knew what people in my old neighborhood were
going through. But I did see people, you know, even
on x and in media who didn't even have kids,
standing up for people who had kids, and I thought
that that was kind of one of the few positives
(10:22):
that I saw. I could think of a bunch off
the top of my head. I mean the Instagram, I
mean the Twitter account Red Stea's Steve Miller was passionate
about reopening schools, and he doesn't have kids, so it
was doable. People just some people just chose not to.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
That's right, and kind of the broader point that I
spent a lot of the book looking at the science
behind this. In part the book is a social critique
and trying to understand how society as a whole and
the political class make decisions. But a lot of the
book I really go deep, the layer of layer into
(11:01):
the strata of the earth, basically trying to understand how
we think about evidence in a very sort of like
epistemological kind of way. What does it mean for something
to be true or not true? And these kind of
very abstract questions were a big driver for me because
(11:22):
I think it's fascinating when we really stop to think, well,
what is evidence we kept hearing about? And this is
rightly so a mocked expression now, but you have to
follow the science, but what is the science? And science
also doesn't tell you what to do. Science may give
you information, but that's very different from values. And this
(11:43):
kind of brings us back to your first question again.
We let's even set aside that the science was incredibly
poor on a lot of this the evidence, but even
if we were to grant that it's accurate, that still
doesn't tell politicians about what to do. Andrew Klalm, the
former governor of New York, repeatedly kept saying follow the data.
(12:04):
You have to follow the evidence, follow the science. But
that means nothing. It was a nonsensical statement that does
not tell you what policies to put in place. The
policies are based on what you value. And again, if
you're a poor kid in the Bronx and your family's
value maybe for you to be in school because you
(12:26):
are a football player and this is your one chance
to get possibly get into college, Well they canceled the
football season. Now you're out of luck. And this happened
to countless kids. Now, the argument, which is a straw
man that you'll hear and that we've had heard for years,
is well, it's better than being dead. But what I
(12:47):
show in the book, and I don't think people have
really shown this before, is how schools had absolutely nothing
to do with the overall case rates. And there is
a wealth of data, and this is really important, Carol.
At this point, this is not a Monday morning quarterbacking
that I'm doing. This is not an after the fact.
(13:08):
I tried very hard throughout the book, almost without exception,
everything I talk about is evidence that was available at
the time. It's basically kind of a TikTok chronology as
you're going through that first year, and I show that
the evidence was there at the moment, but our health
(13:29):
officials and the broader medical establishment ignored or dismissed this
evidence that was available.
Speaker 3 (13:36):
Right.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
One of my favorite moments of the Follow the Science,
Follow the Data was when schools had opened in New
York City. They opened late late September of twenty twenty,
and then in November build Aeblasio closed them again because
the COVID rate, the COVID percentage for the city had
(13:57):
reached a certain percentage. I forgot, I think it my
three percent. But basically what that meant was that three
out of every hundred people who took the COVID tests
at facilities were testing positive. So if you had a
day where two were testing positive were four, it just
it made no sense. But then the best part to
me was Cuomo got on and he said first of
(14:20):
all that the Bill Deblasio cannot close schools. Only he
could close schools, and he could open schools, and he's
the only one in charge. But also he had different data.
He didn't have the same numbers as Bill Deblasio did,
which was like, wait, how's that even possible? How do
you guys have different numbers? Stuff like that I think
went overlooked, even though that to me was a very
(14:40):
kind of pivotal point where people's eyes were open. But
data even isn't always the same.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
Yeah, I love that you touch on this point, and
I talk about this a lot in the book where
I look at that. Yes, as you noted, you know,
different facts and figures are going to come to different people,
including even you know, different politicians and health officials are
going to have different information at any given moment. And
it doesn't mean that it's wrong to have some sort
(15:09):
of benchmark, you know, like we need some sort of
parameters to operate within. So I don't necessarily fault officials
for saying, hey, this is the line that we're going
to go toward. However, they needed to be honest that
this was made up.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
That line made no sense, and that line fictional line.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
Right, this was made And again I don't think it's
wrong necessarily to have some sort of target. Otherwise it's
it's hard to corral society in a certain direction. But
you need to be honest and in fact, and they
were the opposite of honest. They said, this was the science,
this is what And it's interesting I show how different areas,
different regions within our country and different countries, everyone had
(15:50):
wildly different benchmarks. They were all over the place because
everyone had one different data oftentimes and two different ways
of interpreting it about what they felt was quote unquote safe.
Is it three percent, is it five percent, is it
twelve percent? Of you know, some various rates of prevalence
within the community. There's no correct answer to this, Yet
(16:13):
over and over it was presented to the public that
there's sort of like very bright red line about this
is what's appropriate in this area, and anyone who disagreed
was a complete jerk. You know what, are you a moron?
You're trying to do your own research. But the reality
is they had no idea what they were talking about.
(16:34):
Yet it was and this is a large part of
the book that I try to talk that I talk
about is the narrative formation and how the media very
much so worked in conjunction with the health authorities and
generally with democratic politicians that instead of this sort of
(16:54):
classic role where media is supposed to be skeptical of
claims by those in power, whether it's a politician or
whether it's a health official. Instead of that, they basically
just acted as an amplifier. And I give all sorts
of examples where you can see how articles in the
New York Times and elsewhere they kept quoting various people
(17:16):
saying things, but they never provided any evidence or any
proof behind what they were saying. And this is how
the narrative calcified for much of the public was that
schools in Europe when they opened, well that's because Europe
is different. And they made up this long list of
contrived reasons. Yet there was never any evidence behind these reasons,
(17:38):
and if you question them, you're an asshole.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
But yeah, and you want teachers to die, obviously, well
people would die.
Speaker 3 (17:45):
But again, the media failed in its most basic obligation,
which is to actually question what people are telling them,
and if they don't question it, then to at least
do the research themselves as journalists to find out what
is the evidence.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
Yet I give example after example after example of where
our most prestigious news outlets in the country just simply
acted as a pr arm of many of these officials
and their agencies, just simply repeating what they said right
without asking for or seeking on their own the actual
(18:22):
evidence behind these claims, and what I do in the book,
it's essentially a case study, is show one by one
by one how each of these claims was false.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
We're going to take a quick break and be right
back on the Carol Marcowitch Show. So, you know, I
was a columnist for many years before the pandemic, and
I had some level of success, but that time really,
you know, increased my prominence. My career definitely took off
during those years. I became somebody who was writing about
(18:56):
it often and people enjoyed that and that kind of thing.
You were, thank you, thank you, but you were more,
you know, in the mainstream media. Did your career suffer?
Did you take hits for your coverage?
Speaker 2 (19:10):
No, I don't think my career suffered, and in fact,
I think I did quite well.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
But I think you did quite well. But I'm just
wondering if you lost any opportunities for being right too early,
which is a common thing, you know.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
I would say I was astonished at the sort of
rejection or dismissal some of the early work I was
doing by large outlets with whom I had worked with
in the past.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
This is what I meant it had happened to you.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
Yeah. Look, as a journalist, you should just expect most
of the things you pitch are going to be rejected.
No one owes me anything With that said, I know
enough about what you know, what works and what doesn't work.
And these are places I had written for in the past,
and I knew I wasn't pitching, uh, you know, an editorial.
(20:03):
I wasn't pitching you know, Oh, this is my opinion
on this. I had a compendium of evidence behind anything.
And that's why ultimately I was able to write for
some of these more mainstream outlets. And it's funny there
were a number of other journalists in the sort of
contrarian space, if you will, but who are writing for
more either right leaning outlets or just you know, for
(20:25):
their sub stacks or blogs, and they kept asking me,
how are you doing this? How are you getting this
stuff through?
Speaker 1 (20:30):
Yeah? And it was impressive, it really was. I remember,
I mean I remember several of your pieces that I
thought like, oh, how did you get you know, the
Wired piece, just you know, Wired mystic that was those
were roundbreaking pieces and they were in kind of again
mainstream outlets, which was unique.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
Yeah, and I thought about this a lot, you know,
in part just on my own and because so many
other journalists and people have mentioned this to me and
asked me about it. And the answer I can come
up with is that I always came with evidence. And
while most editors are not interested in going against the narratives,
thank god, there are some who actually really care about, well,
(21:14):
what's the truth? What's going on here? Is this, even
though this goes against the sort of establishment view, is
this a well supported argument? And that's the theme of
my book, is that we need evidence behind claims that
we make. And I give lots of fun examples throughout history,
(21:35):
in particular in medicine, but this happens in a variety
of fields. But they give lots of examples about how
o our intuition, including the intuition of experts about what
is true, is often wrong. And this is the foundation
of what's known as evidence based medicine, where you have
this hierarchy of evidence and you have to actually look
at what do the data show, what is the actual
(21:58):
evidence out there, and how does that compare versus what
do you think is going to happen in time and
time again throughout history, including right up to today. Our
intuition is often wrong, and nevertheless, the media and many
of the health experts in America kept going with their
(22:19):
intuition about something, their assumptions, and so for me, I
found that frustrating and I found it offensive. And the
thing that I always do with my articles and what
I try to do in the book is that, And
much to my editor's dismay, I mean, I have there
are hundreds of endnotes with citations in the book, hundreds
(22:40):
upon hundreds of them, because I tried to not make
any statement without providing a source behind it. Now, I'm
sure I failed in some circumstances. I'm sure there are
some mistakes in there, but anyone can see a massive
effort was made at least to provide evidence, because there
was no way I was going to criticize everyone else
(23:00):
for not providing evidence behind their claims for me to
do the same thing. And that that's sort of the
kind of like meta message of the book is really
thinking about evidence and about what is true. And it
doesn't mean we're always going to be right in the
way we put it together, but you have to at
least make an effort. And it was just so troubling
(23:20):
how the media. It's not that they had a source,
but the source was wrong. That happened plenty of times too,
and again that happens to me, That happens to everyone.
Sometimes you just misinterpret a study or you cite the
wrong thing. That's one thing I'm not I try not
to really go after people for that. What's problematic was
not even making an effort. It's this sort of expert say,
(23:42):
I think was it years ago? Trump or someone used
to always say. People are saying, people are saying, yeah,
what an ironic twist, that exact same thing that Trump
was vilified for. People are saying, you know, he's just
kind of play That's exactly what the most prestigious media
did all the time during the pandemic. Experts say, yeah,
(24:02):
they might even quote an expert, but there was no
evidence behind with that. I don't really care what this
person's opinion is on something that's actually within evidence based medicine. Physicians'
opinions is considered generally the lowest form of evidence possible.
I don't want your opinion. Show me the evidence, and
then we can talk about things and then make decisions
(24:25):
as a society based on our values.
Speaker 1 (24:29):
Right, and that also was the fact that a lot
of the experts were changing their minds in real time
and not correcting anything. One of my favorite moments was
June twenty twenty and again, I have this all like,
I'm sure you do too. And I know a lot
of people who were in this COVID, you know, fight
with us. They could recall these times and figures and
statements so easily. But June twenty twenty May Sorry, I
(24:54):
actually I might have gotten that one wrong. Might a
little later, but Anthony Falluci said, as we've been saying
all along, outdoor masking is not necessary. It was June
twenty one because it was after it was after the vaccines.
So June twenty twenty one, he says, as we've been
saying all along, outdoor masking is unnecessary. And I was like,
as we've been saying all along, Like when were you
(25:15):
saying this? This is the first I hear of. But
my kids are masking in between bites while eating lunch
on the ground outside of their schools in New York.
I mean, if you've been saying this, that message has
not penetrated. So they were changing their minds and their
opinions and not following the science at all.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
Actually, let's be clear, it's not only fine but appropriate
to change your opinion as evidence changes.
Speaker 1 (25:42):
Yeah, but be honest about it right.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
Now, exactly all along you are exactly Yeah. The defense
that was given over and over was you know, we're
building the plane as we fly it, and other metaphors
such as that. But again that was in effect a
lie because it was just always exculpatory. No matter what
(26:05):
you did, there was a get out of jail free
card that you could use. Oh, we've never experienced this before.
We never knew what was going on. But again, the
thing I show is that the evidence was there from
the beginning, and I show as time goes on the
evidence that was available and including about masking and outdoor masking,
(26:27):
there was never any evidence that this was going to
be successful. But that's not how it was presented to
the public. One of the things that I'm most proud
of is I had written a piece about the summer
camp guidelines from the CDC. Yeah, and you know, I
saw them and I saw that it included outdoor masking,
and I was like, immediately, because how do you do it?
(26:48):
I was very familiar with the data, and immediately I
was like, this makes no sense. And I had a
number of prominent people, including the editor in chief of
a Jama Pediatrics who said who were like, yes, I
will talk with you for the article on the record,
and they called it, this is draconian, this makes no sense.
Immediately Rachel Olenski was questioned about this, and very shortly thereafter,
(27:11):
the CDC rescinded the outdoor mask guidance for summer camps.
That was a moment that I was proud of, but
you know, those types of things were few and far
between to actually affect policy in that matter. And the
notion of certainty, I think is another really important thread
(27:34):
within the book that I talk about a lot. It's
it's the way that health officials and then sort of
by an extension of that, politicians, and then the buy
an extension of that, the media and the sort of
what we might call like elite society. Overall, the degree
of confidence and the degree of arrogance and righteousness within
(27:56):
which these opinions were expressed was incredibly damaging, and we
can see, you know the result of that was an
enormous lost in trust in our public health institutions. Now
part of that is, you know, I think people can
make a reasonable argument to some extent that Trump and
some others had sort of poisoned the well and this
was reactive to that. But we are responsible for our
(28:19):
own actions. Trump didn't make anybody lie. Trump didn't make
Fauci or others have a degree of confidence they should
not have had when they projected these various pronouncements to
the public about what they should and shouldn't do. And
it's so important to I hope a lesson that people
(28:40):
within media and then more broadly within the sort of
health establishment understand is that they need a degree of
humility and that I know it goes against someone's instinct,
but to be persuasive, it's actually better to be honest
and show nuance and show what you don't know. I mean,
(29:00):
that's the best rule as a writer. You know. Just
going back, you asked me about how did I get
these pieces and some of these sort of legacy media outlets,
And I think, in part I try to never overstate things,
and I try to be honest and express nuance and say, look,
here here's the evidence of what it shows, here's what
we know, and what we don't know, and ultimately, I
(29:24):
think people find that most persuasive. You actually can convince
someone of something more when you don't overstate things. And
in fact, the public health quote unquote experts did the
exact opposite of that time and again they overstated the
degree of evidence, they overstated their confidence, and conversely, anyone
(29:45):
who disagreed was maligned as a fool, as someone who
is dangerous. And the divergence between the United States and
Europe in particular regarding schools is so extraordinary, and the
idea that someone was this Republican crank for wanting to
(30:08):
model our school's policy on good old, progressive western Europe
was absurd. But that's what was claimed over and over again,
and what people believed, and what I tried to show
in the book was how and I talk about a
whole variety of countries within Europe and also outside of
Europe and other places, there was never any sort of
ideological through line between various pandemic policies in different locations.
(30:34):
So what we were experiencing in the United States was
very much its own kind of isolated experience. But yet
people just assumed and extrapolated that this was normal and
that it made sense that, well, of course the Republicans
want things to open up for the economy. No, there
were plenty of countries with a conservative government that wanted
(30:55):
everything shut down. That was the opposite, And there were
plenty of progressive countries that none of this made any sense. Now,
And the important part is that the public by and
large was kept misinformed and uninformed about what was going on.
And I give these sort of case studies within the
media about how things were framed about what was happening
out the outside the United States, and there was always
(31:18):
some sort of very soft but nevertheless definitive excuse. So
why such and such was happening and why it couldn't
happen here? All this was made up? Carol.
Speaker 1 (31:29):
It was insane. What a crazy, crazy time that we
lived through. So one of the questions I ask all
of my guests is what do you worry about? I
want to bring it back to your book, Abundance of Caution.
What do you worry about that you covered in the
book that you could see resurfacing again in our society.
Speaker 2 (31:48):
Well, I worry about I guess, just from my own
background in journalism, I worry about the media still not
quote learning its lessons. And while I'm thrilled that there's
a vibrant sort of whatever, if we want to call
it alternative media landscape, that's terrific. Substacks and podcasts, all
that's great, the legacy media still holds an enormous amount
(32:10):
of sway and power within our country, in particular with
decision makers within Washington, DC and elsewhere. And you can
see it on a whole variety of issues. But when
you become an expert on one particular issue, it then
makes you wonder about issues that you're not an expert
on when you see, oh my god, the way this
(32:32):
is framed is completely wrong. And I give a little
bit of a kind of a behind the curtain look
at what happened with some legacy media publications about how
these sort of the framing of articles was done very
purposefully to exclude or to manipulate information that they didn't
(32:54):
want that in the piece, that didn't fit the narrative.
And you can see this happening again now. And as
long as that keeps happening, we're I think we're going
to be in trouble. I think we're destined for yet
another problem. You know, in the next crisis, whether it's
a medical crisis or something else, until the people who
communicate to the public, who act as that filter. Because look,
(33:16):
most people have regular jobs. They don't have time, right
be I don't expect regular people that are going to
work each day doing whatever it is they do. They
don't have time to start reading studies. They're relying on
other people to present this information to them, and it
needs to be presented in a manner that is far
more objective than in the manner. And it doesn't mean
(33:38):
that there are mistakes or errors in an article. I
think that's often kind of the way it's described that oh,
well this is fact checked, and well everything could be true,
and at the same time the piece can still be
incredibly misleading, right.
Speaker 1 (33:54):
Yeah, we saw a lot of that. I mean even
pieces that were technically true, and a lot of them
were technically A lot of them didn't have that as
there was a lot of errors, a lot of errors.
So what advice would you give your sixteen year old self,
knowing kind of what you know now.
Speaker 2 (34:12):
I mean, outside of you know this narrow discussion, I
would say it's the same advice I try to give
myself now. I wish I had given to myself back then,
which is to be more courageous.
Speaker 1 (34:28):
Urnty pretty courageous.
Speaker 2 (34:30):
Well, thank you for saying so.
Speaker 4 (34:31):
But it still feels like it's not enough to try
to remove any semblance of concern about failure or about
what people will think about you, and to really just
have the courage to go after what you feel is
the right thing to go after.
Speaker 2 (34:53):
That's really hard to do.
Speaker 1 (34:54):
I like that. Okay, I've loved this conversation you. Your
book is fantastic abundance of caution. Everyone should go buy it.
And here with your best tip for my listeners on
how they can improve their lives.
Speaker 2 (35:09):
Well, you know, there are so many things to so
many directions to go with this, but the area that
I think I have some knowledge on is what we've
been talking about. And I would say, when you are
reading an article or watching something on TV or YouTube, whatever,
when you are presented with information, always ask yourself, is
this an argument from authority? That that means is this
(35:30):
just being told to you by someone who has a
credential or are they actually providing evidence for what they
are saying? And if you can follow that, you're going
to change how you view the world, and you will
start to see, including from media that you like and
that you favor, you will start to see how so
much of what we are told is simply arguments from
(35:52):
authority rather than the actual true information that you need
to be told. In that degree three of awareness and
skepticism will make you a more informed person in life.
Speaker 1 (36:06):
He is David's Vike. Check out his work everywhere by
abundance of caution. Thank you so much for coming on, David.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
Thanks Carol, this is great.
Speaker 1 (36:14):
Thanks so much for joining us on the Carol Marcowitz Show.
Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
Host
Karol Markowicz
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.