Speaker 1: 0:32

Hey Brittany, hi Karen.

Speaker 2: 0:34

Welcome back. Welcome back, yes, the E-word. How are you?

Speaker 1: 0:39

feeling I'm okay. You know it's been a good day and I'm hoping we hop into the weekend with some relaxation. Read a good book watch some TV shows chill out. How about you?

Speaker 2: 0:55

I'm going to do the same. I'm going to do the same. I'm going to do the same.

Speaker 1: 0:58

There's a book that I am really excited to get into, so yeah, okay, maybe what we'll do one day is have little bonus sessions, just start a book review.

Speaker 2: 1:13

Book review. Can we add some shows in there?

Speaker 1: 1:18

Let's add some shows in there too.

Speaker 2: 1:20

Add some shows in there too. I have to say I am. You know, we both love comics, and so I've been watching agatha all along. And we speak about equity and we can make it work.

Speaker 1: 1:36

We can make it work or not because people are very serious all the time about the very serious topic, so people can see some of the unserious stuff as well.

Speaker 2: 1:46

Exactly, we're very serious about our joy as well.

Speaker 1: 1:49

There you go. You have to balance that with these hard topics.

Speaker 2: 1:52

We do.

Speaker 1: 1:53

So, we definitely do but we have a hard topic again today, right? I think so.

Speaker 2: 1:59

I think so. So we are at the time I mean, it's election season, right, yep and we are dealing with these debates, these debates? Now, as I understand it, the debates are the candidates' opportunities to detail their plans, their prospective policies and their vision for the country. And not only do we have the presidential debates, we have the vice presidential debates, and so this past week, I watched the vice presidential debates, and so this past week, I watched the vice presidential debates. Did you? I did Initial takeaways.

Speaker 1: 2:44

Well, on an unserious front. Okay, it was far less entertaining than the presidential debate, I'll have to say.

Speaker 1: 2:57

No cats or dogs, no cats or dogs, no cats or dogs Although that was terrible, not really entertainment, but in general right. But you know, I guess in terms of content, like how you just described what the debates are for, I honestly think the format is very difficult for that. The format is really made for soundbites or short high-level overviews of policy, not necessarily these deep dives that when you listen to the reporters and pundits afterwards they're really gunning for or trying to extrapolate from the conversation. But when you're given two minutes on a topic like, you know, immigration, how deep dive can you go? What it does lend itself to, again, is those high level takeaways.

Speaker 1: 3:46

But also, you know, people can misconstrue the information. People can misconstrue the information. Some people can out and out lie about the information and because it's in these digestible bites, it's actually hard to fact check them in the moment. And if you are a very well-spoken person, some things can actually seem to make sense. But when you have to, you know, take a moment to digest and think about it, then you realize that there's a lot more to it or the facts may have been wrong in some cases. So it's a tricky format for me.

Speaker 2: 4:28

Interesting. Interesting, know that. Um, you talked about the, these kind of sound bites, which I think are fascinating because if you're really, if you do them really well, you can be perceived to be much more competent, right and capable, competent, right and capable in your role. Um, so, when I'm thinking back, one of the soundbites I recall is you know, we were told there would be no fact checking, and I found that to be interesting. Um, but I guess my initial impression was that we had someone that was a very polished, very experienced debater. Yeah, we had someone who clearly went to law school, he went to Yale, he went to Yale and someone who did not Right and really struggled with that format to create these snackable quips for us to take away and put in our pocket as proof positive of truthfulness or ability or competence or anything like that.

Speaker 1: 5:56

I agree with that. I mean, that's what's really tough, right, because also, you had that one person who has been on the media trail for a more extended period of time has, like you said, that background in training and I think one of the reporters used this as kind of like a chameleon right In their ability to, you know, just navigate any sort of objection or contrary point of view with more stealth than the other candidate, right. And so you know I've always kind of believed this to be true that if you are an eloquent speaker and writer, it doesn't matter if you're wrong or you don't know what you're talking about. It doesn't matter if you're wrong or you don't know what you're talking about, you will actually elevate faster than someone who doesn't have those skills or the same level of skills.

Speaker 1: 7:04

I think someone I forget who said this because I would credit her right now but she said you could be dumb as a box of rocks if you can speak and write to someone, right, and it's true, I'm not saying now, now that's if you're dumb, but if you're smart and can do those things. And now you add some level of I'm just going to say deceit into that mix. That can be mixed. That can be missed by many people because of your eloquence. If you speak with confidence and eloquence, people tend to believe you, no matter what you're saying, even if it's foolishness, right. And so the Republican vice presidential candidate had far more superior skills in terms of his eloquence than the Democrat VP.

Speaker 2: 8:00

Right, and to your point about deceit, I think what we're tasked with doing as voters is really kind of leaning into our existing biases to match the candidate up against who we believe is more capable, competent, maybe even trustworthy. And I've just been thinking about how and whether you're able to build trust in such a short period of time Because, to your point I would say, the vice presidential Republican candidate performed quite well during the debate but has struggled with more long form media engagements because there seems to be once the veneer kind of wears off. We're hearing things that seem to be a little bit strange but certainly inauthentic, whether it's admitting to having rented a dog because it makes them seem more likable or approachable to ordering a donut Right.

Speaker 2: 9:25

To yeah, things that. Or childcare, right, there's a ton of talk about women's reproductive rights or, you know, people who birth children and caretaking abilities. We see that there seems to be almost a preoccupation with women's roles in society depending on their age, their reproductive ability and their overall worth.

Speaker 1: 9:55

I agree with you. I think also, the big piece there is about authenticity, right, and that's what we as voters need to be looking for, because, you know, a debate stage is a performance. At the end of the day, it is not really meant for dialogue right Back and forth dialogue in a meaningful way. The structure itself doesn't allow for that right. Mics have to be muted and in debate you shouldn't talk over people. But that's not how real conversation is and what we need to focus on is their quote unquote performance off the stage, because that is closer to who they are as a person and how they plan to govern.

Speaker 1: 10:43

The other factor in these more modern elections is social media, so you actually are playing to the soundbite rather than wanting to have a meaningful conversation or dive deeper into those details, because it's not going to play well when it has to be replayed on social, which is problematic. Things that irritates me the most about these debate forums is that the questions are never answered. So I'm like why are we even asking questions just throughout topics? What do you think about immigration? Boom, let them riff right and then do some back and forth, rather than these very specific questions that they're not going to answer and worse, questions that they're not going to answer. And worse, not going to be compelled to answer, which means the question didn't mean anything in the first place.

Speaker 2: 11:51

And that's it. So, yes, authenticity, yes to playing to a soundbite that you can chop up and use for the purposes of social media. And then my question is, you know, is this how, how do we balance this Right? How do we whet the appetite for substance analysis and critical thought? Or do we reshape our approach to substance analysis and critical thought to see what we can get into a 90 second clip and what do we do with that? What do we, how can we engage with that?

Speaker 2: 12:32

Because I would say, with the Democratic vice presidential candidate, there were some flubs there, and this is someone who said you know, initially, that they've not historically been a great debater, but had some wins on his own Right I don't want to seem biased in that space and trying to answer for his timeline in China trying to answer for a timeline in China, that was it was awkward, long and painful and, additionally, came back with a very to your point about not answering questions, came back to say, hey, who do you believe won the 2020 election, presidential election, right, and said that is a damning non-answer.

Speaker 1: 13:18

Right, that was his snackable moment. That was his snackable moment.

Speaker 2: 13:23

And so for me, you know, as a voter, when I'm listening but even in my work, right, when I'm asking questions, I'm listening for the damnable non-answer and the actual answer, right defensiveness. Are you looking to advance your own idea? And how do we get to a point where our communication is effective enough, such that we're not solely bound by the limits of the other person's comprehension Right or their willingness to comprehend?

Speaker 1: 14:14

Right, or their willingness to comprehend, and it's changed so dramatically in such a short period of time that I don't know that the political engine has kept up completely with it. You know, and? But we, as voters, we we need to transition from being low-informed voters right to high-informed voters and soak up that information and be intentional and do what you're doing right, which is listening and interpreting that for ourselves. Now, what I said at the top of this was one of my first impressions. It was far less entertaining, right?

Speaker 1: 15:11

I'm just being honest in my assessment about that, but I also know it's not supposed to be entertainment. Right, that's indicative of a problem, because technically, I was not entertained from the beginning and wanted to change the channel, but I was like, no, again, this is not entertainment. Ok, I need to listen, I need to know what's going on, I need to understand how I'm viewing this, but also how other people may view this. So I'm trying to be more informed, despite my desire for something else.

Speaker 2: 16:06

You know, I'm thinking, as you were speaking about it being entertainment or infotainment, right, where we have that blend blend. I'm thinking of tiktok, because tiktok initially was what? 30, 60 seconds, maybe 90 seconds at most, incredibly, you know short form content where people were sharing stories, how to's right. There's tons of information that you can get on this platform and similar with other social media platforms. I know Instagram and responses Instagram reels and I've seen the length right.

Speaker 2: 16:53

So now you can make a 10 minute TikTok where you can get a little bit more in depth about whatever your topic is. And that's really fascinating to me, because I'm assuming they did this in response to customer or consumer demand, which would be I need more time to talk about this. And so then that makes me wonder is critical thinking back? Is substance back?

Speaker 1: 17:34

In short form Short form substance. Is it back In short form Short form substance Is it back, maybe it's back. Maybe TikTok was training us all along. Right, like you said, 30, 60, 90, now 10 minutes.

Speaker 1: 17:48

Five minutes Maybe and you know, I'm sure, like you know I've we've seen all different sorts of political, you know, not ads, but content right that takes up all of those spaces. And I'm just wondering, like, if we need more of those longer form pieces to help inform the voting public. You know, as a marketer, my whole thing is rinse, reuse, repeat right, and so we create something. Obviously we chop it up, we rinse, reuse, repeat it in different ways and understanding that people want to digest information differently. You know, I'm more of a visual person, visual and audio. So visual audio person if I just hear something, I might not retain it, as well as having the visual component with it.

Speaker 1: 18:48

So, like audio books, although I like audio books. And so, like audio books, although I like audio books, probably not the best if it's something that I really need to remember and digest. And so you take into account all these different forms. And so maybe there just needs to be more effort towards the really policy driven pieces from these candidates. I know a lot of third parties do it right, they have their own interpretation, which is cool, but I really want to hear that from the candidates in their authentic voice, in the way that they're going to talk about it, you know, and what again on the debate stage.

Speaker 1: 19:35

You know, and what again on the debate stage, it's really the high level for lack of a better term right now dumbing down of really dense policy that nobody wants to hear about on stage, right on television, which is a problem. That nobody wants to hear about it Because then they're one issue voters and you know that's an issue because it's just the one thing that they can actually zero in on. That may be important to them, but there's a host of things that are affecting it and we don't truly understand that effect. I know there's a lot of things I learn every single time right Like this was not necessarily taught in depth in school and basically how much our votes matter and how we need to think and, like you said, think critically about the information that we're given and how do we digest that information.

Speaker 1: 20:35

I know these bills are like billions of pages long. I don't know how to solve for that right, but it needs to be solved for Because what we've also seen is that politicians that we elect that are there to serve us and politicians that we elect that are there to serve us sometimes have dual focus agenda. They don't. No one does what they're doing a hundred percent for the good of someone else, right? Let's just keep that real. So what is in it for them is what we need to understand when we put people in office as well, and what they're going to do with that power.

Speaker 2: 21:39

So marketing question for you. You said, you know the marketing formula is rents, reuse, repeat.

Speaker 1: 21:43

My marketing.

Speaker 2: 21:44

Yours. You're an incredible marketer, so we can have it as a standard, is there? How often can you do that? How do you know when there's a limit to?

Speaker 1: 21:59

engagement. You know, um, you know, you're really so the the reason why it's rinse, reuse, repeat is because nobody sees everything at one time. Right again, we're. Our focus is all over the place. Plus, you also have to see things several times in order for it to even register, so you have to constantly put things out there and then, as I said, in different ways, for people to digest it differently.

Speaker 1: 22:24

You can use something if it's really good and high value and meaningful. You can use it for as long as it is that to the particular audience right, long as it is that to the particular audience, right. So it really makes sense to create quality, in some ways matched with quantity, but more so quality that you can do a lot of different things with. So I don't know that there's like a total end game. I mean, at some point the stuff is old and stale and new information comes out, and I think that happens a lot more today because there's so much that's coming out that it probably has a less of a shelf life than it probably did five years ago. But you can get some good traction from equality.

Speaker 2: 23:08

Okay, yeah, I was just thinking um About the number of ways that we need to hear information for it to stick. I'm also thinking of civics class, which has I heard a lot during the debate of you know what people could and could not do during the time as vice president, or you know what those responsibilities are like and simple things. I remember schoolhouse rock. I don't know if anybody listening does.

Speaker 1: 24:05

By the way, they did one for Project 2025.

Speaker 2: 24:13

They did, they did. It's great. It is great, a great explanation of what you can expect.

Speaker 1: 24:15

Maybe we should put that in the show notes. Let me write that down in the show notes. Let me write that down.

Speaker 2: 24:19

Yeah, but very simple things. Right, you know the three branches of government, you know the number of senators, the number of representatives in the House of Representatives right, these are things that we should have some sort of working knowledge of. The fact that you're not just voting for the president on election day right, you have a everyone from your local school board representatives to the president of the united states, and it's critical that you have a working understanding. I would think so. I've just been thinking of ways to make that entertaining too.

Speaker 1: 25:09

Well, I don't know the answer to that. At the end of the day, I have no idea what the answer to that is, but if we did more things like Schoolhouse Rock, I think that's step number one. But I think it definitely is a shame that, like you said, civics class is gone, because I think, well, the question I don't know what I think on this, but the question is why? Why have those classes been removed? Is it intentional has been removed? Is it intentional, Right? Is it better for us in general not to know what people are doing and what their responsibilities are, because then someone will be held accountable for their actions or inactions? Right?

Speaker 1: 25:51

And I can't help but ask that question because there have been so many different things that have happened intentionally, such as, you know. You know, trying to rewrite the district thing, right, so we control voting blocks, Like that's an example of just like things that are intentionally done to control the outcomes of elections. And if you start in schools by starting off with us being again low-informed voters, right, then the barrier becomes higher and higher, you know, in terms of us getting to the point where we understand what's going on, Because then life happens, work happens, we're influenced by all the people around us and we don't feel like we need to dive deeper and learn for ourselves because everything's just being given to us in this fast and furious way. So I can't help but ask the question is that intentional? Because who? Why in the world would we not think that that content is not important for students to learn when they're going to cast their first vote at 18, when they graduate?

Speaker 2: 27:06

And I guess even the fact that it's a point to be celebrated, right, I remember casting my first vote when I was 18 and I was really, really excited about it, yeah.

Speaker 1: 27:29

Are we still looking to engage young people?

Speaker 2: 27:30

Depends on which side of the aisle you talk to, right?

Speaker 1: 27:33

Because, which is so troubling? Right? Because, yeah, you know, you think that you know, young people typically are for forward progress and they typically seem to vote Democratic. And so, you, they definitely want change, right, they want these things and so they look to the party that's going to bring that in the way that they think is important. And, yeah, you might want to suppress that vote for certain groups, right? We've seen those things done intentionally time and time again, so I don't think it's a huge leap to think that there's a broader plan there. It might sound a little conspiracy theorist, but at the end of the day, I really don't think so.

Speaker 2: 28:24

There's tons of evidence around this, and even if we were to say we don't want the kids voting because they don't understand the implications of their vote, we don't want the kids voting because they may not know what they're voting for, my response would then be well, shouldn't we share with them, Shouldn't we give them the information necessary to make an informed, educated vote?

Speaker 1: 28:54

I mean yeah they're no longer kids. They're adults at 18, just adults who can't drink. But they're adults, right. They can go out and get jobs, rent apartments, they can buy a car, they can do all the things, and so there shouldn't be an argument that they're uninformed. Right, they should have been prepared for that, and they're also. They've graduated, many of whom are going off to college, and they're perfectly capable of learning, whether you went to college or not. But you're perfectly capable of absorbing information that's going to have a major effect on your own life. And they're given the right to vote at 18. That's just it. And they're given the right to vote at 18. That's just it. So either you prepare them or you don't. And what's your reason for not doing it?

Speaker 2: 29:50

Hmm, I can't think of a good reason for not doing it Other than the sinister one? Yes, other than to be you know if you missed us at at the inbound conference. I mean, it was a time, but one of the points that we came out with was just, you know what's the point of the exclusion? And I think to your point.

Speaker 1: 30:29

It's very, very clear to see what the point of the exclusion is. I don't know that we would say it's a legitimate purpose, legitimate civic purpose at this point, outside of just looking to control. Yeah, I mean, it's also the same is unrelated, but, like, financial literacy should be a required course in high school. You should know how to manage your money as an adult when you leave school. Why is that not part of the curriculum? Because that's going to help students hopefully not students, excuse me that's going to help 18-year-old plus adults, okay, understand how to manage their money, stay out of debt, save, hopefully reduce some of that. You know economic gap, like it's going to have so many benefits. Understanding the stock markets, right, just how things work.

Speaker 1: 31:15

If I had that class when I was much younger, I mean, one of the first things that I did was open up a credit card in college and run that sucker up Cause I didn't understand you had to pay it back, okay. And then what happened? I got bad credit, Right, and then understand that I was going to need that for a while and then had to work to repair all of that, right, um and so. But if I had known that I'm not saying maybe, maybe I still would have done it. Maybe I still wouldn't have done it, but informed consent, you know.

Speaker 1: 31:50

Yeah, I was. I was ignorant about it in that regard and maybe I would have had the information. Um, or I'm sure my parents told me, but I don't listen to your parents, right, so you need to hear it from different sources. My grandmother was like you know, you got to pay that back and I'm like what? I have no idea. But again, my question is why aren't we teaching these important skills life skills, okay, that are necessary in high school? What is the intention behind that?

Speaker 2: 32:33

And to those who you don't have to be a parent to teach right, there are mentors you can. I'm sure maybe you have nieces, nephews, your friends' children, you know there's so many opportunities for you to meaningfully engage with young people, who really do need that perspective from people outside of their parents, like you said, karen no one's going to listen to their parents. You don't know right. You need an unbiased adult, who may be cooler than your parents.

Speaker 1: 33:10

There you go, that's what. There you go. But I think at the the day, no matter what our age is right, we need to understand that our presence on this earth has meaning in many different ways, and one of those ways is in the voting booth, because we live in this system that was created before many of us were born, right before any of us were born, probably.

Speaker 1: 33:43

I was gonna say, hopefully all of us, if you're still there and maybe there needs to be some tweaks to this, to some of these systems. I don't know, but we're living in this system and we need to understand the game right, know the rules and play it accordingly right, play it according to the rules or know when we need to like work to change some of them. And there's a ton of loopholes, which means there's a lot of rules bending. So understand what those opportunities to bend, the rules are good and bad, and when you need to help put the kibosh on some of those things. We all need to be active participants in this process and not just stand by and complain about it, but it's hard to be active if you don't know what's going on.

Speaker 2: 34:39

Yeah, and learn how to speak and write well. Exactly, exactly, exactly. You know if that's sound even better when they are well articulated.

Speaker 1: 35:02

Exactly Because guess what. You can lie and people will believe. You Speak and write well, with confidence too, right, but it's even better when you're telling the truth.

Speaker 2: 35:15

Even better when you're telling the truth. Yeah, so anyway.

Speaker 1: 35:19

So that's my takeaways from the VP debate.

Speaker 2: 35:23

Likewise. Likewise, I mean hopefully we would love to hear from you, hear what you thought, anything that you took away, I guess we'll see. Yeah, you know We'll continue. To election. Totally, totally Depends on yeah, guess we'll see. Yeah, you know we'll continue to election. Totally, totally depends on yeah, wherever you're getting the sources of pull from. But you know yeah, we'll see.

Speaker 1: 35:52

We'll see what happens. There's a lot. Whatever happens, we're gonna have a lot to talk about we will alright, until the next time on the e-word.