Podcast appearances and mentions of Brendan Nyhan

Trump has promised to remake the federal bureaucracy in his own image and go after his political opponents and the media in his 2nd administration. But there are signals that public protest and civil society mobilization are subdued. How much do we have to fear further democratic backsliding under Trump 2? Brendan Nyhan finds expert consensus on many reasons to be concerned but also evidence that experts were too pessimistic about the likelihood of bad actions the first time.

Um influencer faz pepinos esgotarem na Islândia, uma banda desconhecida e "uma puta falta de sacanagem" causam um tumulto que envolve a polícia, uma novela faz as pessoas viajarem para o Marrocos e uma participante de BBB transforma um salgadinho em item de colecionador. O que essas histórias nos contam sobre influencers e a importância da curadoria em nossas vidas? Este é mais um episódio do Escuta Essa, podcast semanal em que Denis e Danilo trocam histórias de cair o queixo e de explodir os miolos. Todas as quartas-feiras, no seu agregador de podcasts favorito, é a vez de um contar um causo para o outro. Não deixe de enviar os episódios do Escuta Essa para aquela pessoa com quem você também gosta de compartilhar histórias e aproveite para mandar seus comentários e perguntas no Spotify, nas redes sociais , ou no e-mail escutaessa@aded.studio. A gente sempre lê mensagens no final de cada episódio! ... NESTE EPISÓDIO - Logan Moffitt tem mais de 6 milhões de seguidores no TikTok, onde é conhecido como @logagm. - A Islândia subitamente viu esgotar seus estoques de pepino, alho, vinagre e óleo de gergelim. - A novela "O Clone" popularizou Marrocos, jóias, gírias e até academias de dança do ventre. - Juliette transformou livro, música e até salgadinho em febre por todo o Brasil. - "Curadoria: O poder da seleção no mundo do excesso", livro de Michael Bhaskar, fala sobre as diferentes curadorias que usamos para lidar com a sobrecarga de opções. - Brendan Nyhan, que estuda "fake news" e o extremismo na internet, afirma em estudo recente que os algoritmos apenas reforçam convicções que já existem. ... AD&D STUDIO A AD&D produz podcasts e vídeos que divertem e respeitam sua inteligência! Acompanhe todos os episódios em aded.studio para não perder nenhuma novidade.

Former President Donald Trump attracted attention for his answer in a town hall with Sean Hannity last week suggesting he would not abuse his power as president in a second term, “except for Day One.” His answer came after extensive reporting on how his second-term plans would challenge democratic norms and accepted limits on presidential power on issues ranging from Department of Justice investigations to domestic use of the military. In this installment of the 538 Politics podcast, Galen speaks with constitutional law professor Kate Shaw and professor of government Brendan Nyhan about Trump's second-term agenda. They discuss which aspects of it butt up against norms and the Constitution and which parts might simply be objectionable to partisans. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

“Serve, serve, serve.”“Serve before you sell.”“Just give value.”Sound familiar? We hear a lot about WHY we need to give value, but when it comes to the HOW - the only thing really taught is to post educational content (totally fine by the way!) But in a world where information is SO easily accessible, you must lean into the other ways to serve your audience as well. Not sure where to start? I got you, friend.In this episode, I'm giving you four specific strategies so you can serve your audience well and build a community of people who can't get enough of you. Click play to hear all of this and…[00:01:14] The “Backfire Effect” - how over-delivering information can sometimes backfire.[00:02:15] How to research your ideal client's habits and preferences to serve them well.[00:08:05] Ways to facilitate mindset shifts in your audience to make them crave more of you.[00:09:11] The importance of building a community just for people seeking similar solutions.[00:11:13] How creating personalized resources can make you unforgettable (and how to do it!).[00:16:03] Ways you can create meaningful relationships with your audience and make them feel significant and valued.[00:19:13] One simple thing that makes your audience feel TRULY connected to you.Wanna take serving your audience a step further? After you listen to this episode, click play on: "How to Create More Meaningful Relationships in Business”For full show notes; visit: https://jasminestar.com/podcast/episode374 Sources: When Corrections Fail: The persistence of political misperceptions, Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler, https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.dartmouth.edu/dist/5/2293/files/2021/03/nyhan-reifler.pdf 

Brendan Nyhan spends a lot of time researching America’s political polarization and the strength of its democracy with the organization he founded, Bright Line Watch. In part 2 of our interview with him, he tells us how questions about the state of America’s democracy really need to be put in the context that we didn’t… Continue reading 90. Are American politics more polarized than ever? Brendan Nyhan thinks social media just helps us see it more.

Does Facebook make people’s politics more extreme? Do algorithms force us into bubbles? Does social media threaten American democracy? Political scientist Brendan Nyhan used his permission to research political data on Facebook as an opportunity to tackle these questions head on. In part one of our interview with Brendan, he tells us about his contribution… Continue reading 89. Facebook scores your politics with a number. Brendan Nyhan figured out what they do with it. (Part 1 of 2)

The modern world inundates us with both information and misinformation. What are the forces that conspire to make misinformation so prevalent? Can we combat the flow of misinformation, perhaps by legal restrictions? Would that even be a good idea? How can individuals help distinguish between true and false claims as they come in? What are the biases that we are all subject to? I talk to political scientist Brendan Nyhan about how information and misinformation spread, and what we can do as individuals and as a society to increase the amount of truth we all believe.Blog post with transcript: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2023/09/18/250-brendan-nyhan-on-navigating-the-information-ecosystem/Support Mindscape on Patreon.Brendan Nyhan received his Ph.D. in political science from Duke University. He is currently James O. Freedman professor of government at Dartmouth College. Among his awards are an Emerging Scholar award from the American Political Science Association, a Guggenheim Fellowship, and election to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.Web siteDartmouth web pageGoogle Scholar publicationsWikipediaSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The 2016 election posed questions we still haven't fully answered about our elections, but today's guest, Dartmouth professor and elections researcher Brendan Nyhan, has some answers in the form of research he conducted with the cooperation of ... gulp ... Facebook. He's just out with some studies that put real numbers behind why Trump was elected in 2016, and what that could mean for 2024. Also on the show, Niger experiences a coup, and the world responds, "Um, like, could you guys stop that? Please?" And a California neighborhood is invaded by hungry goats. If only they had a $191,000 per year goat herder on the city payroll! Produced by Joel Patterson and Corey Wara Email us at thegist@mikepesca.com To advertise on the show, visit: https://advertisecast.com/TheGist Subscribe to The Gist Subscribe: https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/ Follow Mikes Substack at: Pesca Profundities | Mike Pesca | Substack Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The January 6th Committee report is a treasure trove of shameful nonsense. It might not convince the DOJ, but its convincingly embarrassing for the well-documented Trump sycophancy movement. Plus, Brendan Nyhan is a professor of government at Dartmouth who co-directs the Bright Line Watch. The line they're watching is of American Democracy, and the future got somewhat brighter with the past election and behavior afterwards. Also, it's the Most Antwentig Time Of The Year. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this week's episode of Politics In Question, Julia and Lee join Brendan Nyhan, Lilliana Mason, Aziz Huq, and Jennifer Victor to discuss how America's system of winner-take-all congressional districts exacerbates the challenges its democracy faces. Nyhan is the James O. Freedman Presidential Professor, Department of Government, Dartmouth College. Mason is an SNF Agora Institute Associate Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University. Huq is the Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School. And Victor is an associate professor of political science at George Mason University's Schar School Policy and Government.

Las redes sociales son el principal medio de difusión de las fake news. Los politólogos Andrew Guess, Brendan Nyhan y Jason Reifler publicaron hace unos meses un documentado trabajo que demostraba que Facebook se lleva la palma a la hora de remitir usuarios a las webs de fake news. Hace un año, los directivos de esta red social dirigida por Mark Zuckerberg, preocupados por el fenómeno y la consiguiente pérdida de credibilidad de los contenidos de su web, decidieron añadir una etiqueta roja con el término discutible en los enlaces sospechosos que no provenían de fuentes fiables, como la CNN, el Washington Post y el New York Times.https://suscripciones.zinetmedia.es/mz/divulgacion/muy-interesanteComparte nuestro podcast en tus redes sociales, puedes realizar una valoración de 5 estrellas en Apple Podcast o Spotify.Gracias por escuchar nuestros 'Grandes reportajes de Muy Interesante'Dirección, locución y producción: Iván Patxi Gómez Gallego

Brendan Nyhan is a presidential professor at Dartmouth College's department of government. He joins Big Technology Podcast for a discussion that pushes back on the notion that social media is destroying our society and making us stupid. With this thoughtful analysis, Nyhan adds a bunch of nuance to the discussion. This episode is effectively pt. 2 of our conversation with Prof. Jonathan Haidt a few weeks back. While Haidt believes social media is breaking our society and threatening democracy, Nyhan says hold up just a second. By the way, here's a new thing I did: For a behind-the-scenes look into some of my research for this episode, you check out my Pocket Collection (which is filled with the links) at: getpocket.com/bigtechnology

13 de junio | Nueva YorkLeer esta newsletter te llevará 12 minutos y 8 segundos.📬 Mantente informado con nuestras columnas de actualidad diarias. Tienes un ejemplo en este boletín que enviamos el pasado miércoles sobre la derrota del fiscal del distrito de San Francisco Chesa Boudin y lo que ello significa para el futuro del movimiento reformista del sistema de justicia criminal. Puedes suscribirte a través de este enlace:Maldito ladrón. Bienvenido a La Wikly.📱 No tan fácilLo importante: el auge de las redes sociales ha redibujado el panorama social, cultural y político de todas las sociedades del planeta, pero desde hace años impera una narrativa de casi absoluto consenso que concluye que las redes sociales tienen efectos negativos sobre las democracias.Ahí está el ascenso de los populismos, la crisis de salud mental entre jóvenes o la forma en la que el contenido de odio puede propagarse a una rapidez y escala impensables hace años.Explícamelo: en los últimos meses, dos ensayos publicados en The Atlantic y en The New Yorker han reavivado el debate acerca de si realmente las plataformas han tenido consecuencias tan nocivas.Aunque las conclusiones son dispares, los argumentos que esgrimen presentan enfoques interesantes ante el que será un debate que se seguirá dando durante años.Y además permiten desmontar algunas teorías muy establecidas sobre cómo las redes sociales han afectado al mundo real.📜 Reconstrucción históricaContexto: podría decirse que el punto culminante del optimismo tecnodemocrático sobre el aumento de popularidad de las redes sociales fue en 2011, el año que comenzó con la Primavera Árabe y terminó con el movimiento Occupy Global, según cuenta el psicólogo social Jonathan Haidt en su ensayo.También fue entonces cuando Google Translate empezó a estar disponible en prácticamente todos los teléfonos. Con la supresión de la barrera idiomática y la galopante globalización, estábamos más cerca que nunca de ser un solo pueblo.En el cambio de década, los usuarios de las redes sociales se sintieron más cómodos compartiendo detalles íntimos de sus vidas con extraños y con grandes corporaciones; se volvieron más expertos en administrar su marca personal a través de las redes —y tener éxito con esa marca personal.Es decir, los usuarios empezaban a saber qué foto tendría más me gusta o qué comentario tendría más retuits. La adaptación a ese nuevo statu quo desencadenó lo que Haidt define como la intensificación de las dinámicas virales.Llegado 2013, las redes sociales se habían convertido en un nuevo juego: si tenías habilidad o suerte, podías crear una publicación que capaz de viralizarse y hacerte famoso en Internet por unos días. Si cometías un error, podías terminar enterrado en comentarios de odio.El optimismo de 2011 empezó a decaer y empezó a encontrar conclusiones más apocalípticas conforme distintos escándalos ensombrecieron el crecimiento y las posibilidades de plataformas como Facebook, YouTube o Twitter.En la actualidad, los científicos sociales han identificado al menos tres fuerzas principales que unen colectivamente a las democracias exitosas: capital social (extensas redes de vínculos sociales con altos niveles de confianza), instituciones sólidas e historias compartidas.Según Haidt, las redes sociales habrían debilitado a las tres.🔬 El debate científicoHaidt representa el sector académico que defiende una visión pesimista de las redes sociales. Cree que las herramientas de la viralidad han corroído algorítmica e irrevocablemente la vida pública.El auge de las redes sociales ha “disuelto sin darse cuenta el mortero de la confianza, la creencia en las instituciones y las historias compartidas que habían mantenido unida a una democracia secular grande y diversa”, dice Haidt.La principal preocupación de Haidt es que el uso de las redes sociales nos ha dejado particularmente vulnerables al sesgo de confirmación. Es decir, la propensión a consumir e interiorizar el contenido que apuntala nuestras creencias previas.Esto lo llevó en 2021 a ser el coprotagonista de una iniciativa experimental de investigación colaborativa sobre el efecto de las redes sociales de internet que proponía reunir estudios sobre su impacto en la sociedad.El Google Doc “Redes sociales y disfuncionalidad política: una revisión colaborativa” se puso a disposición del público y acumuló comentarios con miles de estudios y fuentes de lo más diversas (desde artículos de revistas especializadas hasta hilos en Twitter y ensayos de Substack).El documento tiene más de 150 páginas y para cada pregunta hay estudios afirmativos y disidentes, así como algunos con resultados mixtos.La puesta en común de investigaciones específicas sobre los efectos de las redes sociales reveló, entre otras cosas, que tres de las preocupaciones más arraigadas podrían no ser tan graves como parece. El periodista Gideon Lewis-Kraus las mencionó en su artículo para The New Yorker:Las cámaras de eco, focos de sesgo de confirmación, se evidenciarían más en los vínculos que establecemos en la vida real que en las redes sociales, donde estamos expuestos a una gama más amplia de puntos de vista.Las fake news tampoco llegarían a tanta gente como se ha dicho. Es posible que un número muy pequeño de personas consuman noticias falsas de forma habitual. Y si lo hacen, suelen no creérselas.Los agujeros de conejo de plataformas como YouTube, esos por los que las recomendaciones algorítmicas habrían radicalizado a millones de personas mostrándoles contenido cada vez más extremista, se podría haber exagerado.“Estas son las tres historias: cámaras de eco, campañas de influencia extranjera y algoritmos de recomendación radicalizados. Pero, cuando miras la literatura, todas han sido exageradas”, sostiene Brendan Nyhan, politólogo de Dartmouth.Un documento de trabajo dirigido por Nyhan encontró que, contrario a lo que muchos preferirían pensar, existen razones de peso para creer que hay muchas personas buscando deliberadamente contenido de odio. Es decir, que el núcleo del problema no es la radicalización algorítmica, sino algo mucho más complejo.Nyhan pensó que asimilar estos hallazgos es crucial, aunque solo sea para ayudarnos a comprender que nuestros problemas pueden estar más allá de ajustes tecnocráticos.“Muchas de las críticas que se les hacen [a las redes sociales] están muy mal fundadas [...] La expansión del acceso a Internet coincide con otras 15 tendencias a lo largo del tiempo, y es muy difícil separarlas. La falta de buenos datos es un gran problema en la medida en que permite a las personas proyectar sus propios temores en este área”, sostiene Nyhan.🔮 ¿Y entonces?Ante esta postura más moderada sobre cuál debería ser la respuesta ante los efectos que parecen producir las redes sociales, Haidt defiende que las condiciones son demasiado terribles como para adoptar una visión realista:“La preponderancia de la evidencia es lo que usamos en salud pública. Si hay una epidemia, como cuando empezó el COVID, supongamos que todos los científicos hubieran dicho, 'No, ¿tenemos que estar seguros antes de hacer algo?'. [...] Tenemos la mayor epidemia de salud mental entre adolescentes de la historia y no hay otra explicación [que el auge de las redes sociales]. Es una epidemia de salud pública atroz, y los propios niños dicen que es cosa de Instagram, y tenemos algunas pruebas de ello, entonces, ¿es apropiado decir, 'Nah, no lo has demostrado'?".El argumento no es infundado. De hecho, como analizamos en esta entrega, investigaciones internas de Facebook revelaron datos como que el 32 por ciento de las adolescentes dicen que, si se sienten mal con sus cuerpos, Instagram hace que se sientan peor.Con el agravante de que las compañías que administran la plataforma de Meta minimizan constantemente en público sus efectos negativos entre adolescentes.El sociólogo Chris Bail, que orquestó junto a Haidt la propuesta de investigación colaborativa, rescata un apunte que contribuye a darle complejidad al fenómeno global de las redes sociales.Para ello, cita dos investigaciones que se propusieron inferir las diferencias entre un grupo A, con perfiles activos en Facebook, y un grupo B, con sus perfiles en la plataforma desactivados, durante las cuatro semanas previas a unas elecciones. Una se realizó en Estados Unidos; la otra, en Bosnia y Herzegovina.Los resultados de las investigaciones fueron diametralmente opuestos.En su newsletter Platformer, el periodista Casey Newton aboga por esperar a la publicación de más estudios antes de sacar conclusiones definitivas o legislar muy en lo concreto. Cabe pensar que una ley que pretenda regular funcionalidades como las recomendaciones algorítmicas puede no tener las consecuencias deseadas y además atente contra la innovación.Aunque bien es cierto que las redes sociales están muy poco reguladas, especialmente en países como Estados Unidos.Ni qué decir que si eres un pesimista como Haidt, entonces la lucha por el futuro de las democracias se está batallando ahora mismo, así que habría que tomar medidas cuanto antes.Quizá la mejor conclusión la dejaba el investigador Matthew Gentzkow en una cita para el artículo de The New Yorker:“Hay muchas preguntas aquí donde la cosa en la que estamos interesados como investigadores es en cómo las redes sociales afectan a la persona promedio. Hay una serie diferente de preguntas donde todo lo que necesitas es que un número pequeño de personas cambie —preguntas sobre violencia étnica en Bangladesh o Sri Lanka, gente en YouTube movilizada para llevar a cabo tiroteos masivos. Mucha de la evidencia generalmente me hacer ser escéptico con que los efectos medios sean tan grandes como la discusión pública piensa que son, pero también creo que hay casos en los que un número pequeño de personas con perspectivas muy extremistas son capaces de encontrarse entre ellos y conectar y actuar. […] Ahí es donde residen muchas de las peores cosas de las que estaría más preocupado”.Así que sí, probablemente las redes sociales han tenido consecuencias negativas sobre la sociedad y sobre las democracias. Y sí, probablemente todos hayamos exagerado los efectos nocivos de algunas particularidades muy concretas de las plataformas. Pero lo que está claro es que:Necesitamos más estudios acerca de los efectos de las redes sociales en la sociedad.Las compañías deberían dejar a los investigadores tener más acceso a sus datos.Hay daños que sí se han demostrado y tanto legisladores como plataformas deberían actuar cuanto antes para atajarlos.¿Desea saber más? Los dos ensayos son lectura muy, muy recomendada. Este otro artículo del Council of Foreign Relations indaga en una crítica habitual a Haidt y sus conclusiones pesimistas: “Las redes sociales no nos han cambiado de forma fundamental, solo nos han permitido ser nosotros mismos. Han dado forma y color a la última erupción de nuestros lados más oscuros, que siempre estuvieron ahí, esperando a venir a la superficie de nuevo tal y como han hecho repetidamente cada pocas generaciones por razones y en un calendario que sigue siendo confuso”.🎬 Una recomendaciónCon la colaboración de FilminBy Emilio DoménechFeels Good Man es una película documental estadounidense de 2020 dirigida por Arthur Jones. Cuenta los inicios de la rana Pepe, convertida ahora en uno de los mayores memes de toda la historia de internet lejos de las manos de su creador original.La película invierte gran parte de su duración en explorar el uso que la extrema derecha online hizo del meme para propagar mensajes de odio.Es difícil encontrar documentales que hablen de internet de una forma elocuente y que al mismo tiempo se sientan significativos o incluso trascendentales. Feels Good Man, pese a no ser perfecto, encapsula a la perfección muchas de las corrientes que influencian la convivencia online y el impacto que la viralidad tiene en el mundo real.Además, ilustra con inteligencia y empatía la forma en la que el arte puede ser corrompido —y pese a los esfuerzos del artista por impedirlo.No conozco ningún otro ejemplo de un documental que haga un trabajo parecido a la hora de traducir la cultura de los memes para todos los públicos, así que Feels Good Man sin duda es una buena oportunidad para espectadores algo desconectados de lo que pasa en cavernas como 4chan.Los muy leídos en el tema también encontrarán gratas recompensas acerca de la historia de Pepe, por cierto un habitual de los emojis de nuestra comunidad de Discord y de mis streams.Feels Good Man está disponible en Filmin.🤳 Una plataforma realistaBy Marina EnrichLo importante: Hace meses que BeReal se ha convertido en la app por excelencia de la generación Z. Emilio no os ha hablado de ella, y yo, que la uso diariamente, me he sentido obligada a explicaros de qué va y por qué tiene tanto éxito.Contexto: BeReal es una App fundada por el francés Alexis Barreyat y que no tiene nada que ver con ninguna red social actual. Cómo funciona. En un momento aleatorio del día te saltará una notificación al móvil diciendo: “Es la hora de BeReal” para que subas una foto. A todo el mundo le llega la notificación a la misma hora. Hasta que no subas tu foto, no puedes ver la de tus amigos. La foto se capturará a la vez con la cámara frontal y trasera. Al día siguiente, todas las fotos habrán desaparecido.Lo más importante: Es una app antipostureo. No tiene filtros. No puedes falsear la realidad. Menos yo este fin de semana, que he esperado a estar en el festival Primavera Sound para subir mi BeReal (son las dos fotos que encabezan esta sección).Eso sí, BeReal no me ha dejado engañar a mis amigos. Al lado de mi foto, ponía que la he subido 5 horas más tarde, siendo así menos real.Por lo general, las fotos que subo cada día a la aplicación son trabajando en mi ordenador, igual que la mayoría de mis amigos. Puede parecer aburrido, pero para mí es un respiro ver a gente que no se pasa el día viajando, tomando el sol y haciendo deporte.¿Pasará de moda? Pues igual. Aunque la verdad es que esta aplicación responde a una tendencia general entre la generación Z de querer compartir contenido más auténtico (lo vimos con los finstas, esos instagrams privados que creas solo para tus amigos).El interés de esta generación por TikTok tampoco es aleatorio. La aplicación china acuna contenido mucho más auténtico y natural que Instagram, y esa es la razón por la que, en general, nos gusta más.Lo mejor. BeReal no crea adicción. Mientras que Facebook, Instagram y TikTok viven de la economía de la atención, intentando retener a sus usuarios la mayor cantidad de tiempo, BeReal es todo lo contrario. Una vez subes tu foto y ves la de tus amigos, la aplicación pierde el interés. Hasta el día siguiente.Lo interesante: ver cómo monetizan la app. Han recaudado 30 millones de dólares tras una ronda de financiación de la firma de capital de riesgo Andreessen Horowitz, por lo que algún cambio tendrán que hacer.Esperamos que se mantengan reales a su premisa original, je.En otro orden de cosas, hoy vuelve Lunes por el mundo con los resultados electorales en las legislativas de Francia y la crisis de hambruna en Somalia, entre otros titulares. Anita os hablará de la Cumbre de las Américas en la entrega premium del martes.Podrás seguir el directo a partir de las 20:00 hora peninsular de España en Twitch.Feliz semana, This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.lawikly.com/subscribe

For President Joe Biden, this was one of those weeks that demonstrated the limits of the powers of the presidency.  Political scientists often like to rib pundits and the public for having a so-called “Green Lantern” view of the presidency, a theory defined by Dartmouth's Brendan Nyhan as “the belief that the president can achieve any political or policy objective if only he tries hard enough or uses the right tactics." In reality, presidents operate under enormous constraints that often make them seem feckless in the face of intractable problems.  The news at the end of this week makes it clear that Biden has entered the “long slog” period of his first term. The bold ambitions of year one have been downsized. And even with more modest goals, unifying Democrats in Congress has become tougher — and winning over Republicans harder — than ever. Many problems, like inflation, don't have readily available solutions. And even when Biden is able to act, like on immigration, his choices are politically perilous. Listen to Playbook Deep Dive: The midterms will be won in the suburbs Raghu Manavalan is the Host of POLITICO's Playbook. Jenny Ament is the Executive Producer of POLITICO Audio.

This week we're bringing you the breakdown of the heavyweight bout of the century—a battle over vaccine misinformation. In the left corner we have the White House. Known for its impressive arsenal and bully pulpit, this week it asked for the fight and came out swinging with claims that Facebook is a killer—and not in a good way. In the right corner we have Facebook, known for its ability to just keep taking punches while continuing to grace our screens and rake in the cash. The company has hit back with gusto, saying that Facebook has actually helped people learn the facts on vaccines. Period. Will either of them land a knockout blow? Is this just the first round of many match ups?On this episode of our Arbiters of Truth series on our online information ecosystem, we devote the conversation to the latest slugfest between Facebook and the White House. Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic spoke with Renee DiResta, the research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory, and Brendan Nyhan, professor of government at Dartmouth College, both of whom have been working on questions of online health misinformation. Let's get ready to rumble. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week on Lawfare's Arbiters of Truth series on disinformation, Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic spoke with Brendan Nyhan, a professor of political science at Dartmouth University. We talk a lot about the crisis of falsehoods circulating online, but Nyhan's work focuses on empirical research on what the effects of disinformation and misinformation actually are. And he's found that those effects might play less of a role in political discourse than you'd think—or at least not quite in the way you might think. They talked about the fake news about fake news and the echo chamber about echo chambers. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week on Arbiters of Truth, Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic sat down with Brendan Nyhan to discuss the crucial platform that often seems to slip under the radar in discussions of mis- and disinformation: YouTube.Brendan is a professor of government at Dartmouth College, who has just co-authored a report with the Anti-Defamation League on “Exposure to Alternative and Extremist Content on YouTube.” There's a common conception that YouTube acts as a radicalization engine, pushing viewers from mainstream content to increasingly radical material. But Brendan and his coauthors found a somewhat different story: YouTube may not funnel all viewers toward extreme content, but it does reliably recommend that content to users who are already viewing it. They discussed his findings and how we should understand the role that YouTube plays in the information ecosystem. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

How are partisan identity and misinformation connected? Sam Wang is joined by Brendan Nyhan to discuss misinformation, partisan identity, and the stability of America's democratic norms. Nyhan is a professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College. He is a researcher on politics, polarization, and healthcare, with an emphasis on false beliefs. He's also a contributor to the Upshot from The New York Times and the co-founder of Bright Line Watch, a group that monitors the health of American democracy.

How are partisan identity and misinformation connected? Sam Wang is joined by Brendan Nyhan to discuss misinformation, partisan identity, and the stability of America's democratic norms. Nyhan is a professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College. He is a researcher on politics, polarization, and healthcare, with an emphasis on false beliefs. He's also a contributor to the Upshot from The New York Times and the co-founder of Bright Line Watch, a group that monitors the health of American democracy.

This week we're bringing you the breakdown of the heavyweight bout of the century—a battle over vaccine misinformation. In the left corner we have the White House. Known for its impressive arsenal and bully pulpit, this week it asked for the fight and came out swinging with claims that Facebook is a killer—and not in a good way. In the right corner we have Facebook, known for its ability to just keep taking punches while continuing to grace our screens and rake in the cash. The company has hit back with gusto, saying that Facebook has actually helped people learn the facts on vaccines. Period. Will either of them land a knockout blow? Is this just the first round of many match ups? On this episode of our Arbiters of Truth series on our online information ecosystem, we devote the conversation to the latest slugfest between Facebook and the White House. Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic spoke with Renee DiResta, the research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory, and Brendan Nyhan, professor of government at Dartmouth University, both of whom have been working on questions of online health misinformation. Let's get ready to rumble.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Dr. Brendan Nyhan is a political scientist and professor of government at Dartmouth College. He spoke with Ryan Merkley, Aspen's Commission on Information Disorder project director, about the effectiveness of misinformation countermeasures like fact checks on the retention of misperceptions, the US elections, platforms and the YouTube algorithm, and more. This session is part of a video series of expert briefings on mis and disinformation hosted by the Aspen Institute in tandem with our Commission on Information Disorder to help make sense of the various facets of the information crisis called Disinfo Discussions. They are designed as a resource for the commissioners and the broader public. To learn more about Aspen Digital's Commission on Information Disorder, visit www.AspenInfoCommission.org. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook @AspenDigital.

Today on Boston Public Radio: We start the show by opening phone lines, talking with listeners about Rep. Liz Cheney’s (R-WI) ouster from GOP leadership. Jonathan Gruber weighs in on whether the U.S. should implement a value-added tax to help fund President Joe Biden’s “Build Back Better” agenda. Gruber is the Ford Professor of Economics at MIT. He was instrumental in creating both the Massachusetts health-care reform and the Affordable Care Act, and his latest book is "Jump-Starting America: How Breakthrough Science Can Revive Economic Growth And The American Dream." Juliette Kayyem discusses the cyber attack on the Colonial Pipeline, and explained how ransomware attacks on private companies are on the rise. She also talks about the crash of a Chinese rocket in the Indian Ocean, and the potential for more space debris and rocket parts to fall to earth. Kayyem is an analyst for CNN, former assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security and faculty chair of the homeland security program at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. Art Caplan shares his thoughts on the possibility of school COVID-19 vaccine mandates, and an increase in Americans on diets. Caplan is director of the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University School of Medicine. Chuck Wexler explains the nationwide decline in police applicants, and discusses changes in police training over the last few decades. Wexler is the executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), and a former member of the Boston Police Department. Brendan Nyhan talks about his research into misinformation, emphasizing the role digital technology has played in accelerating the spread of misinformation. Nyhan is a professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College, and the co-founder of Bright Line Watch, which monitors practices of and threats to American democracy. We end the show by asking listeners what they thought about Apple’s new AirTag tracking devices.

This week on Arbiters of Truth, the Lawfare Podcast’s miniseries on our online information ecosystem, Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic sat down with Brendan Nyhan to discuss the crucial platform that often seems to slip under the radar in discussions of mis- and disinformation: YouTube. Brendan is a professor of government at Dartmouth College, who has just co-authored a report with the Anti-Defamation League on “Exposure to Alternative and Extremist Content on YouTube.” There’s a common conception that YouTube acts as a radicalization engine, pushing viewers from mainstream content to increasingly radical material. But Brendan and his coauthors found a somewhat different story: YouTube may not funnel all viewers toward extreme content, but it does reliably recommend that content to users who are already viewing it. They discussed his findings and how we should understand the role that YouTube plays in the information ecosystem.

Police statements about the Atlanta shooter’s motives defined early media reports and earned swift derision. This week, we examine how bad habits in the press undermined coverage of the tragedy. Plus, how we equate presidential power with presidential willpower. And a behind-the-scenes look at a new radio play that interweaves Shakespeare’s English with its Spanish translation. 1. Erika Lee [@prof_erikalee] Regents Professor of History and Asian American Studies at the University of Minnesota, on how Asian women have been targets of exclusion in the U.S ever since they first arrived in the United States. And Jason Oliver Chang [@chinotronic], Associate Professor of History and Asian/Asian American Studies at the University of Connecticut, explains how the model minority myth has cloaked patterns of brutality against Asian-Americans in the U.S. long before Tuesday's tragedy. Listen. 2. Brendan Nyhan, [@brendannyhan] professor of government at Dartmouth College, on his "Green Lantern theory of the presidency," the limits on executive power, and the history of presidents who thought they could expand it. Listen. 3. Saheem Ali, director of Romeo y Julieta from New York’s Public Theater and WNYC Studios, on the aim to both entertain and show that language need not divide us. Listen. Music from this week's show:The Glass House — David BergeaudMisterioso (Thelonoius Monk) — Kronos QuartetSomeday My Prince Will Come — Fred HerschUluwati — John Zorn  

Dartmouth Professor Brendan Nyhan is a leading expert on something that we all take for granted, but is getting trickier and trickier these days: facts. We dive into why such deep misconceptions of basic facts are growing, what they mean for our political system, and whether anything can be done to stop them.

Will Trump do lasting damage to American democratic institutions? He has repeatedly broken norms during his presidency and tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election. How much is the US undergoing democratic backsliding and what did his presidency reveal about the strength and limits of our institutions? Brendan Nyhan is an organizer of Bright Line Watch, an effort to survey experts and the public to track the erosion of democratic norms under Trump. He finds significant signs of weakness but acknowledges the many future unknowns. In this special year-end conversational edition, we review the damage and the evidence.

This year was the worst. And as our staff tried to figure out what to do for our last episode of 2020, co-host Latif Nasser thought, what if we stare straight into the darkness … and make a damn Christmas special about it. Latif begins with a story about Santa, and a back-room deal he made with the Trump administration to jump to the front of the vaccine line, a tale that travels from an absurd quid-pro-quo to a deep question: who really is an essential worker?  From there, we take a whistle-stop tour through the numbers that scientists say you need to know as you wind your way (or preferably, don’t wind your way) through our COVID-infested world. Producer Sarah Qari brings us her version of the Christmas classic nobody ever dreamt they’d want to hear: The Twelve Numbers of COVID. You can check out Martin Bazant’s COVID “calculator” here. This episode was reported by Latif Nasser and Sarah Qari, and was produced by Matt Kielty, Sarah Qari, and Pat Walters. Special thanks to Anna Weggel and Brant Miller, Catherine, Rohan, and Finn Munro, Noam Osband, Amber D’Souza, Chris Zangmeister, John Volckens, Joshua Santarpia, Laurel Bristow, Michael Mina,  Mohammad Sajadi, James V. Grimaldi, Stephanie Armour, Joshuah Bearman, Brendan Nyhan And for more on the proposed Santa vaccine deal, see Julie Wernau and her colleagues' reporting at the Wall Street Journal here. Original art for this episode by Zara Stasi. Check out her work at:  www.goodforthebees.com.  Support Radiolab by becoming a member today at Radiolab.org/donate.    

Plus... Brian Stelter says Trump officials dodging questions is a sign of weakness; what election denialism and Covid skepticism have in common; how Newsmax TV is pressuring Fox from the right; and more. Kaitlan Collins, Brendan Nyhan, Errol Louis, Jane Lytvynenko, Jim VandeHei, Kent Bush, Dave Bundy and Sarah Seifert join Brian Stelter. To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

Ever notice how some beliefs only seem to become stronger, even as they're repeatedly debunked? For example, the belief that Barack Obama is a Muslim, or that Bush banned all stem cell research in the country. Brendan Nyhan tells about what he's learned from his research studies and his experience maintaining Spinsanity, a watchdog blog monitoring political misinformation. Is there any hope of clearing up false beliefs if denials simply make the problem worse? Brendan does offer hope, but it won't be easy. Brendan Nyhan is a a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in Health Policy Research at the University of Michigan. He received a Ph.D. from the Department of Political Science at Duke University in May 2009. In 2011, He will join the Department of Government at Dartmouth College as an assistant professor. His research focuses on political scandal and misperceptions. He also conducts research on social networks and applied statistical methods. Sped up the speakers by [1.0, 1.0, 1.0]

Back in April, Dr. Brendan Nyhan, an expert in the politics of misinformation about health, talked with guest host Dr. Colleen Barry, chair of the Department of Health Policy and Management, about social media, scientific uncertainty, and COVID-19’s misinformation storm. Today, he returns to the podcast to discuss what we’ve learned about misinformation since then, why—like the virus itself—it’s so hard to eradicate, and a new threat: how COVID-19 misinformation may impact the upcoming election. Nyhan also talks about how misinformation may be threatening the very fabric of democracy, and what social media platforms and leaders should be vigilant about in the days and weeks to come to promote the integrity of the election.

Jack Nicastro '23 discusses topics related to voting, such as voting by mail and voter turnout, with Professor of Government, Brendan Nyhan.

Today, a core element of American democracy — access to reliable information — is threatened. How did this happen? And how can American democracy survive the impact of misinformation? Our guest is Brendan Nyhan. He is a contributor to The Upshot at the New York Times and a co-founder at Bright Line Watch, a group that monitors the status of American democracy. He is a professor of government at Dartmouth College.Is that a fact? is brought to you by the nonpartisan, non-profit News Literacy Project. In each episode of this 10-part series, we’ll bring in an expert to discuss an aspect of our current information environment that is threatening the promise of American democracy. We’ll also ask our experts to share some solutions, so you can become a more informed voter.For more information about the News Literacy Project, go to newslit.org.Relevant interviews and links:The Dartmouth, 2/5/2020 Discussing coverage of Trump’s impeachment trialsAlbright Institute at Wellesley College, 01/11/2018 Talk titled: Why Facts and Science Don’t Always Change People’s Minds NHPR 5/24/2017 Talking about political misinformation and "fake news" post-TrumpWNYC, 7/20/2017 Interview about the backfire effect on WNYC’s On The Media The Communications Network (no date) Talking about research on misinformationAdditional credit: Zoe Denckla provided research assistance and Miranda Shafer provided production assistance.

Plus... an interview with NYT CEO Mark Thompson; Trump versus Voice of America; and a Mother's Day visit with the mom and daughters behind "The Quarantine Times." Maggie Haberman, Catherine Rampell, Oliver Darcy, Renee DiResta, Brendan Nyhan, Mark Thompson, Lisa Napoli, and Laura, Claire and Rachel Lundgren join Brian Stelter.

Brendan Nyhan is a political science professor at Dartmouth College who focuses on misinformation and so-called fake news. His views on how fake news affects election outcomes might surprise you.  Try Slate Plus free: slate.com/amicusplus Podcast production by Sara Burningham. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week on Lawfare’s Arbiters of Truth series on disinformation, Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic spoke with Brendan Nyhan, a professor of political science at Dartmouth University. We talk a lot about the crisis of falsehoods circulating online, but Nyhan’s work focuses on empirical research on what the effects of disinformation and misinformation actually are. And he’s found that those effects might play less of a role in political discourse than you’d think—or at least not quite in the way you might think. They talked about the fake news about fake news and the echo chamber about echo chambers.

Tracking The Spread Of The Coronavirus Outbreak This week, the World Health Organization declared that the coronavirus outbreak—which began in Wuhan, China—is a public health emergency of international concern. Nearly 8,000 cases have been confirmed worldwide. Chinese scientists sequenced the genome of the virus from some of the patients who were infected early on in the outbreak. Virologist Kristian Andersen discusses how the genetics of the virus can provide clues to how it is transmitted and may be used for diagnostic tests and vaccines. Plus, infectious disease specialist Michael Osterholm talks about the effectiveness of quarantines and what types of measures could be put in place to halt the spread of the pathogen. Putting Invasive Species On Trial When species that have existed in one place for a long time are transported to new ecosystems, there are a few possible outcomes. First, nothing could happen. That flower, fish, or flying insect could find the new environment too hostile. In other cases, the new arrival may succeed and multiply just enough to establish itself in the food chain alongside the native species. But a small fraction of wayward species can go on to dominate. They out-compete an established species so well that they may take over their new home, and change the way a food web functions. Think garlic mustard, jumping worms, and emerald ash borer beetles. And in The Death and Life of the Great Lakes, this winter’s Science Friday Book Club pick, journalist Dan Egan recounts how exposing lakes Michigan, Huron, Ontario, Superior, and Erie to new species had devastating effects on the ecosystems of each lake—first, blood-sucking sea lampreys decimated native lake trout, then tiny alewives exploded in population. Ship-transported round gobies, quagga and zebra mussels, spiny waterfleas, and more have since come on the scene. It’s no surprise that ecologists have had close eyes on the lakes for decades. And now, with species of potentially invasive Asian carp poised to enter from the Mississippi River basin, many wonder what’s next for the Great Lakes’ flora and fauna.  Conservation biologist David Lodge, who helped pioneer the eDNA method for tracking Asian carp, joins University of Michigan ecologist Karen Alofs to talk about how new species become invasive and how biologists decide what to prevent, what to protect, and, sometimes, what changes to accept. When A Correction May Not Be Helpful New work relating to messages about the Zika virus and yellow fever published this week in the journal Science Advances indicates that delivering accurate messaging may be harder than you think. Brendan Nyhan, a professor of government at Dartmouth College and one of the authors of the report, joins Ira to talk about the study and what lessons it might hold for educating people about other public health risks. A Close Call Collision In Near-Earth Orbit On Wednesday night, skywatchers near Pittsburgh looked up, watching, just in case there was a collision in space. Two satellites, an old U.S. Air Force satellite and a nonfunctioning orbital telescope, narrowly avoided collision, passing as close as 40 feet from each other. One estimate ranked the odds of collision at 1 in 20. Amy Nordrum, news editor at IEEE Spectrum, joins Ira to talk about the problem of orbital debris and other stories from the week in science.

As part of a month-long campaign called the Purple Project for Democracy, (a strictly non-partisan, apolitical effort that a number of other large news organizations have also contributed to) we are featuring a series of conversations about an alarming loss of trust, faith and devotion by Americans for American democracy –– and what to do about it. Bob is one of the Purple Project organizers. The Pizzagate pedophile conspiracy, crisis actors at Sandy Hook, the flat Earthers...and on and on. Absolute nonsense peddled by the cynical and the naive, and eagerly lapped up by the gullible. Misinformation is a problem that Brendan Nyhan, professor of government at Dartmouth College, has studied for years. In this interview, Brendan and Bob discuss new research on how Americans form their political beliefs and how civic institutions may begin to win back their trust. Song: Il Casanova di Federico Fellini by Nino Rota

When consuming the news, people bring their biases with them. However, University of Michigan professor Brendan Nyhan and other scholars have found that facts can — and do — change people’s minds when presented under certain conditions. We discuss his research on how to create a more widely-shared understanding of reality and related topics.

When consuming the news, people bring their biases with them. However, University of Michigan professor Brendan Nyhan and other scholars have found that facts can — and do — change people’s minds when presented under certain conditions. We discuss his research on how to create a more widely-shared understanding of reality and related topics.

When consuming the news, people bring their biases with them. However, University of Michigan professor Brendan Nyhan and other scholars have found that facts can — and do — change people's minds when presented under certain conditions. We discuss his research on how to create a more widely-shared understanding of reality and related topics.

Xander Snyder and Erik Fogg host the ReConsider Podcast—their motto is "We don't do the thinking for you." You can visit reconsidermedia.com to learn more about their podcast, which covers politics, history, and society. This episode is longer than the typical episode because of it's a simulcast across two podcasts. 0:00 Introduction to Erik, Xander, and the Reconsider podcast 5:00 How do you "not do the thinking" for your listener? 17:20 Socratic dialogue as a technique 20:30 The difference between psychological facts and historical facts 32:00 Goals of Heterodox Academy 37:20 How to become more informed about history and propaganda 40:10 Common problems in learning Links Andrew Guess, Brendan Nyhan, & Jason Reifler -- Selective Exposure to Misinformation: Evidence from the Consumption of Fake News Matt Grossman and David Hopkins – Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats Kevin Kruse and Julian Zelizer on the RINO label Jarret Crawford’s research on asymmetrical and symmetrical political bias Jason Stanley – How Propaganda Works Open Mind Platform The Bulwark Podcast Why is This Happening? with Chris Hayes and All In With Chris Hayes Transcript This is a transcript of the episode. Rating the Show If you enjoyed this show, please rate it on iTunes: * Go to the show's iTunes page and click “View in iTunes” * Click “Ratings and Reviews” which is to the right of "Details" * Next to "Click to Rate" select the stars. See the full list of episodes of Half Hour of Heterodoxy >>

In a world where facts are increasingly up for debate, who is fact-checking actually for? It's one of the biggest questions in journalism, and we're tackling it for our very first episode. First, Amy Sippitt talks about who reads stories from Full Fact, a fact-checking project in the United Kingdom (Spoiler: It's mostly men!) Then, Brendan Nyhan from the University of Michigan gives us the lowdown on which audience needs fact-checking the most.(Mis)informed is hosted by Daniel Funke and produced by Vanya Tsvetkova, an interactive learning producer at Poynter's News University. It was edited by Alexios Mantzarlis, with additional editing and creative direction from Alex Laughlin.Let us know what you think by tweeting @factchecknet and read more coverage of misinformation at poy.nu/AllTheFacts.

What are the real facts about fake news? Brendan Nyhan is co-author of an important new study on fake news consumption during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. He discovered that a staggering one in four Americans visited a fake news site in the month before the election. But what was the actual agenda for most of these sites and what effect did they have on voters? His findings may surprise you.

What are the real facts about fake news? Brendan Nyhan is co-author of an important new study on fake news consumption during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. He discovered that a staggering one in four Americans visited a fake news site in the month before the election. But what was the actual agenda for most of these sites and what effect did they have on voters? His findings may surprise you.

Brendan Nyhan, Professor of Government at Dartmouth University, discussed the implications of facts and science in today’s society and why such seemingly reliable concepts can fail to change people’s minds in conversation and debate.

It’s been a busy week in health care, and PULSE CHECK is here to help make sense of it all. First, POLITICO’s Paul Demko and Sarah Karlin-Smith join Dan Diamond to discuss Republicans’ tax reform plans, Alex Azar’s nomination as HHS secretary, the state of ACA enrollment and Dan’s reporting on the Mayo Clinic. (Starts at the 2:00 mark.) Then, Dartmouth professor Brendan Nyhan sits down with Dan to discuss his research into myths and lies about the ACA, vaccines and other health care issues, and how to change a person’s mind. (Starts at the 27:15 mark.) Finally, Dan reflects on Uwe Reinhardt, the giant of health policy who passed away this week. (Starts at the 45:35 mark.) We’d appreciate your help: Please share PULSE CHECK and rate us on your favorite podcast app! Have questions, suggestions or feedback? Email ddiamond@politico.com. Stories and work referenced on the podcast: Sarah and Adam Cancryn's story on Alex Azar, the nominee to lead HHS: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/13/alex-azar-hhs-secretary-trump-244837 Paul's story on the early ACA enrollment numbers: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/15/obamacare-enrollment-surges-trump-244930 Dan's story on Mayo Clinic's growth and rural patients' anger: www.politico.com/story/2017/11/16/mayo-clinic-rural-health-care-244955 Brendan Nyhan's work on death panel myths: http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2013/01/new-study-on-difficulty-of-correcting-death-panel-myth.html The New York Times' obituary of Uwe Reinhardt: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/obituaries/uwe-reinhardt-a-listened-to-voice-on-health-care-policy-dies-at-80.html?_r=0

Virginia Heffernan talks to Brendan Nyhan, Professor of Government at Dartmouth, about the President's many lies including his most recent ones featured in The New York Times interview with Maggie Haberman, Peter Baker, and Michael S. Schmidt. Slate Plus members, stick around after the show to listen to producer Jayson De Leon chat with Jonathan Swans of Axios about his latest scoop – Anthony Scaramucci being named White House Communications Director. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Virginia Heffernan talks to Brendan Nyhan, Professor of Government at Dartmouth, about the President's many lies including his most recent ones featured in The New York Times interview with Maggie Haberman, Peter Baker, and Michael S. Schmidt. Slate Plus members, stick around after the show to listen to producer Jayson De Leon chat with Jonathan Swans of Axios about his latest scoop – Anthony Scaramucci being named White House Communications Director. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Since Trump's surprising win in the 2016 presidential election, there's been a flurry of discussion about why things turned out this way. But which explanations are well-supported, and which are wrong (or simply rationalizations)? This episode features political scientist Brendan Nyhan, who talks with Julia about questions like: Were the polls and models wrong? If so, why? How surprised should we have been by Trump's win? And why didn't the markets react badly to it?

Each day we are faced with dozens of dietary choices, and those choices impact how we think, how we look, how we feel and how we function. Which foods are good for us, and which foods should be avoided? Gut Instinct unpacks the many commonly held and controversial beliefs surrounding food and diet, in an age where there are far too many cooks in the kitchen telling us what to believe about healthy eating. Contributors: Dr. Alan Levinovitz, Dr. Robynne Chutkan, Dr. Briana Pobiner, Dr. Steven Novella, Daniel Leffler, MD, MS, Yvette D'Entremont, Karen Stark, Annmarie Butera Cantrell, Alan Aragon, Alice Bast, Tom Asacker, Brendan Nyhan, PH.D., Dr. Elaine Hsaio

Each day we are faced with dozens of dietary choices, and those choices impact how we think, how we look, how we feel and how we function. Which foods are good for us, and which foods should be avoided? Gut Instinct unpacks the many commonly held and controversial beliefs surrounding food and diet, in an age where there are far too many cooks in the kitchen telling us what to believe about healthy eating. Contributors: Dr. Alan Levinovitz, Dr. Robynne Chutkan, Dr. Briana Pobiner, Dr. Steven Novella, Daniel Leffler, MD, MS, Yvette D'Entremont, Karen Stark, Annmarie Butera Cantrell, Alan Aragon, Alice Bast, Tom Asacker, Brendan Nyhan, PH.D., Dr. Elaine Hsaio

Professor Brendan Nyhan Interview by Talk of Fame Network

On The Gist, we look at the proliferation of fact-checking in the 2016 campaign. One empirical analysis found that Donald Trump is telling a falsehood every five minutes during his speeches. But why isn’t the aggressive fact-checking of the Republican making a difference? We called up Brendan Nyhan, a professor in the department of government at Dartmouth College and the former editor of Spinsanity, a nonpartisan watchdog site focused on political messaging.    In The Spiel, the faltering cease-fire in Syria.   Panoply survey We want you to tell us about the podcasts you enjoy and how often you listen to them. So we created a survey that takes just a couple of minutes to complete. If you fill it out, you’ll help Panoply to make great podcasts about the things you love—and things you didn’t even know you loved  To fill out the survey, just go to panoply.fm/survey. Today’s sponsors: Casper. Get an obsessively engineered mattress at a shockingly fair price. Go to Casper.com/gist and use promo code gist to get 50 dollars toward any mattress purchase. Join Slate Plus! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more.  Sign up for a free trial today at slate.com/gistplus. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On The Gist, we look at the proliferation of fact-checking in the 2016 campaign. One empirical analysis found that Donald Trump is telling a falsehood every five minutes during his speeches. But why isn’t the aggressive fact-checking of the Republican making a difference? We called up Brendan Nyhan, a professor in the department of government at Dartmouth College and the former editor of Spinsanity, a nonpartisan watchdog site focused on political messaging.    In The Spiel, the faltering cease-fire in Syria.   Panoply survey We want you to tell us about the podcasts you enjoy and how often you listen to them. So we created a survey that takes just a couple of minutes to complete. If you fill it out, you’ll help Panoply to make great podcasts about the things you love—and things you didn’t even know you loved  To fill out the survey, just go to panoply.fm/survey. Today’s sponsors: Casper. Get an obsessively engineered mattress at a shockingly fair price. Go to Casper.com/gist and use promo code gist to get 50 dollars toward any mattress purchase. Join Slate Plus! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more.  Sign up for a free trial today at slate.com/gistplus. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey guys! We'll be on Spotify very soon. Check out our new website www.thepollsters.com & send us very nice emails about how we can make the resource page better!   Poll of the week! Or maybe, “relevant pitch” of the week? How might you find independents on radio? Nielsen sent us some answers. Nielsen data on CNBC   Snap judgment So we had a debate. Who are you going to trust to find out who won: the polls? Or the other polls? Real Clear Politics on Luntz focus group WP informal focus group CNN/ORC post-debate poll PPP post-debate poll Morning Consult post-debate poll NBC/Survey Monkey post-debate poll Echelon poll YouGov post-debate poll Newer PPP post-debate poll NYT on post-debate polling Donald Trump on post-debate polling Brendan Nyhan on fact checking   Transition team Is this election bringing out the worst in people? Is it bringing out anyone to vote?l Monmouth poll on bringing out the worst Gallup on compromise Gallup on high hopes Gallup on interest in voting Pew on views toward the media Mediaite on media vs putin   Grilled cheese, spicy mochas, & the Simpsons Does Carl mainsplain to Mrs. Krabapple? Washington Post on grilled cheese The Simpsons, graphed on reddit   Key Findings: Did you have “poll denialism” on your debate bingo card! We will next time for sure. And everyone get your transition team ready. Not for the next president, but for the rest of america. Never mind m or manterrupting during the debate, what has been happening with the  Simpsons? We had no idea. Maybe Homestar Runner is better?   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the fourth episode, RealClear’s polling analyst David Byler asked Dartmouth College political scientist Brendan Nyhan why voters cling to myths and misconceptions during elections. RealClearPolitics White House Correspondent Alexis Simendinger asked Professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center, whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump could lock up wavering voters in 90 televised minutes. Managing Editor Emily Goodin, with help from Franklin and Marshall College polling director G. Terry Madonna, explains how four of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties could decide whether Clinton or Trump capture the state’s prized 20 Electoral College votes.

Brady chats with NYT columnist and Dartmouth political scientist Brendan Nyhan about this week's avalanche of political ads. Then, two seasoned primary watchers weigh in on the celebrities (and non-celebrities) candidates call upon in the primary's waning weeks. Finally, a public radio host who's interviewed hundreds of primary candidates shares her strategy to get them to open up. #FITN #2016 #Politics

The science of swaying popular opinion: think vaccines. Dartmouth political scientist/psychologist Brendan Nyhan specializes in the cognitive biases that come with identity politics. Jennifer and Brendan talk about the psychology of changing minds, how our beliefs and opinions are tied to personal identity, and what does and does not work in terms of strategy when it comes to swaying popular opinion. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/upshot/why-californias-approach-to-tightening-vaccine-rules-could-backfire.htmlhttp://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/vaccine-denial-psychology-backfire-effect

The science of swaying popular opinion: think vaccines. Dartmouth political scientist/psychologist Brendan Nyhan specializes in the cognitive biases that come with identity politics. Jennifer and Brendan talk about the psychology of changing minds, how our beliefs and opinions are tied to personal identity, and what does and does not work in terms of strategy when it comes to swaying popular opinion. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/upshot/why-californias-approach-to-tightening-vaccine-rules-could-backfire.htmlhttp://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/vaccine-denial-psychology-backfire-effect

Pediatric Grand Rounds with Brendan Nyhan

On the show this week we talk to Dartmouth political scientist Brendan Nyhan, who has focused much of his research on employing the tools of social science to study fact-checking—why it so often fails, and what can be done to make it work better. The cynical view on fact-checking is "too negative," argues Nyhan. "I think you have to think about what politics might look like without those fact-checkers, and I think it would look worse."This episode is guest co-hosted by Rebecca Watson of skepchick.org, filling in for Indre who is out this week. It also features a discussion of a new study suggesting that religious and non-religious individuals are equally moral, and new research on gender discrimination in job performance evaluations, particularly by men with traditional views of gender roles.iTunes: itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/inquiring-minds/id711675943RSS: feeds.feedburner.com/inquiring-mindsStitcher: stitcher.com/podcast/inquiring-minds

SmartCast: from The Communications Network | Facts Alone Are Not Always Persuasive | Professor Brendan Nyhan discusses why false beliefs and misconceptions are so difficult to challenge, let alone correct.

Ever been in an argument with someone and felt massively frustrated, because nothing you can say seems to change the person's mind? Maybe that's what you should expect to happen. Maybe you should get used to it. According to University of Michigan political scientist Brendan Nyhan, that's how our minds work-and it's not just that. When it comes to politics, people who believe incorrect things tend to be strongly convinced that they're right, and moreover, often become stronger in that conviction when they're refuted. It's a pretty alarming aspect of human nature-but in this interview, Nyhan explains how we know what we do about people's intransigent clinging to misperceptions, and how we can work to change that. Brendan Nyhan is a political scientist and Robert Wood Johnson scholar in health policy research at the University of Michigan. He was previously a co-author of the political debunking website Spinsanity.com, and co-author of the New York Times bestselling book All The President's Spin. He blogs at www.brendan-nyhan.com.

Ever notice how some beliefs only seem to become stronger, even as they're repeatedly debunked? For example, the belief that Barack Obama is a Muslim, or that Bush banned all stem cell research in the country. Brendan Nyhan tells about what he's learned from his research studies and his experience maintaining Spinsanity, a watchdog blog monitoring political misinformation. Is there any hope of clearing up false beliefs if denials simply make the problem worse? Brendan does offer hope, but it won't be easy. Brendan Nyhan is a a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in Health Policy Research at the University of Michigan. He received a Ph.D. from the Department of Political Science at Duke University in May 2009. In 2011, He will join the Department of Government at Dartmouth College as an assistant professor. His research focuses on political scandal and misperceptions. He also conducts research on social networks and applied statistical methods.

Political scientist Brendan Nyhan studies the impact of facts on political views, and finds that often, reality doesn't matter. Journalist Robert Frank reports on the rich for the Wall Street Journal. He says that despite fears that they'd lose their fortunes during the financial crisis, many of the highly affluent are doing better than ever, and the gap between rich and poor has only grown.

Mike interviews political scientist Brendan Nyhan, a professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College. His research on political misperceptions has been published in many of the top journals in the field. He's also a contributor to ‘The Upshot‘ at the New York Times – one of Mike's ‘must read' sites. Show Links – … Continue reading "Brendan Nyhan Interview" Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/the-politics-guys/donations Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands Privacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy