The American Age

005 - Since SARS-CoV-2 tore through the population and left biologic, economic, and emotional catastrophe in its wake, the question of its origins has flitted in and out of public consciousness. The legacy U.S. media has, for the most parts, shown little interest in its origins beyond quick glosses affirming its “natural” origins, or perfunctory reporting on the unpopularity of the “lab leak” hypothesis. However, recent reporting by Katherine Eban at Vanity Fair has revealed that Dr. Anthony Fauci, the U.S. Government, and the NIH have misled the public about their support of “gain of function” research at the Wuhan lab. What does it mean to “trust” a public official in twenty-first century America, and why is it so polarizing to question them?

196 - There’s been a recent movement in journalism to focus on “fairness” over “objectivity.” It’s often argued that it’s impossible to be objective, that fair is the best we can hope for. The hosts talk about the implications of this shift, and what could be lost along the way.

004 - In 2016, Katie Couric interviewed the late justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg… and was dragged for editing out some very spicy quotes from RBG. Couric admits in her upcoming memoir, "Going There", that she redacted those quotes to "protect" RBG, but that she also felt it was "unworthy of a crusader for equality", despite Couric herself claiming to be a "big RBG fan." In this episode, the hosts aim to confront Couric's journalistic integrity, while sparing time to criticize RBG's now-brought-to-light statements.

195 - Good intentions don't always yield righteous fruit. We disassociate ourselves from people or ideas out of performance and fear; we're terrified of our peers thinking poorly of us. Sometimes, we seem to forget that the call may be coming from inside the house.

003 - We're adding a layer of reflection to analysis in this episode. Steven Fullwood looks to a book and an article to spark introspection about the "ubiquity of social media and fame". Travis Webb draws connections to Stoicism and offers a great quote from a Roman emperor. Seph Rodney brings out candid vulnerability, reminding us that critical thinking can still foster tender moments. What is our collective relationship with recognition and adoration? And how does it play into our interpersonal relationships?

194 - Hosts Travis Webb and Seph Rodney swing open every last door in a deep discussion about the merits and motives of self proclaimed "researchers" and "experts". There is no one true way to quantify (or even identify) the qualities or prerequisites that would give you authority on a given topic. An enlightening debate is eventually tempered by Steven Fullwood prompting some self reflection.

002 - This week we cut to the chase on Nicki Minaj's infamous tweet about a friend of a friend of a friend's experience with vaccines. Stranger danger is no longer trendy; tis the season for recklessness from household names. We discuss the virality of the tweet as well as the questionable virility of its subject. In the end, the focus is more on critical thinking than any single act itself.

193 - Hosts dive into Ben Lerner's "The Hatred of Poetry" and each dispense their interpretations and perspectives of the book. There's such a paradox about poetry; it's an abstract place of abundant connection, yet also an intersection where the human experience diverts from one another. Find out what other works are provocative to the hosts and why Travis doesn't like Emily Dickinson.

001 - To kick off the new podcast format (bi-weekly hour-long episodes with a miniseries in between), hosts Travis Webb and Seph Rodney offer their personal thoughts around Sha'Carri Richardson getting barred from the Olympics. Many people were quick to respond with concerns about systemic racism, while others maintain that the rule applies to everyone.

192 - In culmination of the long discussion around dystopias, from old films to current news, the hosts walk through ignorance and expertise, taking the scenic route to better investigate the logic gaps between cognitive dissonance and the perils of prowess. Our collective conscience seems to be a game of telephone that begins with practical knowledge and good intentions, but somehow it devolves into bickering amongst constituents about who is right and what is "fake news". How do we effectively sift through all of that in order to create room for progress?