Landslide: Engines of Outrage Pt. 3 [NPR]

Host: Ben Bradford
Date: February 20, 2025
Main Theme:
This episode explores what, if anything, can be done to curb the engines of outrage, misinformation, and political division that have flourished in the digital age—especially as they relate to right-wing media ecosystems. Through interviews with experts and personal accounts, host Ben Bradford seeks to uncover solutions, from the practical to the radical, for combating misinformation in a polarized America.

Table of Contents

• Overview & Purpose
• Key Discussion Points & Insights
  • 1. The Facebook ‘Good for the World’ Experiment
  • 2. Nina Jankowicz: Fighting Disinformation and Bearing the Consequences
  • 3. Systemic Barriers: The Outrage Engine and the Response
  • 4. Trusted Messengers — Lessons from Ukraine
  • 5. The Role and Limits of Local News
  • 6. The Reality of Political Campaigns and Messaging
  • 7. Is the Only Solution to Build a Counter-Engine of Outrage?
• Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
• Important Segment Timestamps
• Conclusion

Overview & Purpose

Episode Purpose:
Host Ben Bradford asks: Can misinformation and division be curbed? This episode examines failed and proposed solutions, focusing on the need to tell compelling truths, reach people where they are, and build trust through local messengers. Through the saga of Nina Jankowicz and insight from campaign strategists, it discusses why previous efforts have failed and whether competing engines of narrative are the only viable answer.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Facebook ‘Good for the World’ Experiment [00:24 – 01:40]

• In 2020, amidst rampant COVID misinformation, Facebook ran an internal experiment on the spread of positive vs. negative content.
• Experiment: Users tagged content as “good for the world” or “bad for the world.”
• Findings:
  • “Bad for the world” content spread faster and kept users engaged longer.
  • Changing the algorithm to favor “good” content reduced engagement; Facebook reverted the change.
• Takeaway: Engagement (and thus profit) trumps social good in platform incentives.
• Speaker Quote:
  • “They found posts rated bad for the world circulated fastest... Those people spent less time on Facebook... Facebook did? They literally turned off the algorithm called Good for the world...” (Interviewee, 01:11–01:35)
• Implication: Platforms drive outrage because outrage is profitable.

2. Nina Jankowicz: Fighting Disinformation and Bearing the Consequences [03:48 – 13:19]

• Background: Nina Jankowicz, an expert on Russian disinformation, worked in Ukraine post-Crimea annexation.
• Two Principles for Counteracting Disinformation:
  1. Tell a good story — Compelling truth is needed to compete with compelling lies. (04:13–04:25)
  2. Meet people where they are — Actively push out truthful information on platforms people actually use. (04:42–05:00)
• Personal Experience:
  • In 2022, joined DHS as lead on the Disinformation Governance Board, an advisory inside DHS.
  • The announcement was seized upon by right-wing media to invent “ministry of truth” conspiracy theories (06:52–13:19).
  • Outrage rapidly spread after amplification by right-wing influencers like Jack Posobiek, then by Fox News and members of Congress.
  • Nina and her family received threats; advised to leave their home.
  • The Board was shuttered; she resigned.
• Lesson: Silence or slow response allowed misinformation to fill the void:
  • “That meant that the kind of prevailing truth out there was the lies that were being bandied about.” (Nina Jankowicz, 10:21)

3. Systemic Barriers: The Outrage Engine and the Response [13:35 – 15:00]

• Noted that any effort to combat misinformation is rapidly targeted by the same methods—lawsuits, congressional scrutiny, media outrage—creating a chilling effect even on academic research centers.
• Ben Bradford:
  • “I’m not convinced there’s any story the government could have provided to outcompete that message.” (14:27)
• Principle #3 emerges: Trusted messengers matter — people believe those within their communities more than distant authorities.

4. Trusted Messengers — Lessons from Ukraine [14:14 – 15:42]

• Ukraine’s Approach: Trained 10,000 librarians nationwide to teach information literacy; librarians were trusted, local, and effective.
• Limitation: Such a top-down, government-run program is unworkable in the U.S. context, especially as trust in institutions is so degraded.
• Jankowicz:
  • “It’s all about the framing and the delivery of this stuff.” (15:35)

5. The Role and Limits of Local News [16:20 – 20:50]

• Matt Gertz: Argues reviving local newspapers could help restore trust and serve as community messengers.
• Barriers:
  • Most local papers shuttered or stripped of resources.
  • “Pink slime” fake local news (AI-generated, right-wing content) fills the void.
  • Kate Starbird (University of Washington):
    • People pick news that entertains or affirms more than informs.
    • “Conspiracy theories are far more entertaining than the truth.” (18:48)
    • Even trusted fact-based news struggles to engage (“how do you tell the stories that engage people?” – 19:20)
• Challenge: Real news may not emotionally compete with viral misinformation.

6. The Reality of Political Campaigns and Messaging [23:43 – 32:07]

• Mike Madrid (GOP strategist):
  • Campaigns no longer try to persuade; focus is on mobilizing the base through fear and anger.
  • Different messages target segmented audiences; consistency isn’t required, only resonance within micro-communities.
    • “What we have found is, it is much easier to use fear and anger as mobilizing tools.” (Mike Madrid, 24:43)
    • “Tell me what your mythology is and I’ll let you know if I can agree with that.” (25:26)
  • Earnest journalism or fact-based news cannot compete; alternative right-wing media infrastructure has swamped old patterns.
  • To break through: build infrastructure within communities, using validators (existing trusted figures) and narrative storytelling.
• Bradford’s Reflection:
  • The market incentives, funding sources, and aim are mismatched: there is no business model for “piercing the bubble” with truth at scale.

7. Is the Only Solution to Build a Counter-Engine of Outrage? [32:07 – 33:40]

• Attempts at neutral, fact-based information fail due to lack of resonance and scale; only emotionally compelling narratives spread fast and wide.
• Mike Madrid: Suggests building a counter-infrastructure, copying the tactics of outrage media but for fact-based storytelling—constructing new communities, media outlets, and leveraging existing influencers.
  • “Tell a better story about truths.” (30:45)
• Ethical Dilemma:
  • Is the only way to counteract the right-wing outrage ecosystem to build a similar engine for the other side?
• Bradford: It may be the only “compelling” answer for truly piercing the bubble, albeit an uncomfortable one.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Facebook’s incentives:

  • “They literally turned off the algorithm called Good for the world…”
    — Interviewer/Commentator, [01:35]

• On the power of narrative:

  • “Government communications doesn’t need to be something that’s boring and staid… Tell a good story.”
    — Nina Jankowicz, [04:13–04:25]

• On being targeted:

  • “Within 24 hours of it being announced, Tucker Carlson was saying that I was going to have men with guns at my disposal…”
    — Nina Jankowicz, [06:52]

• On failure to respond:

  • “In not responding, that meant that the kind of prevailing truth out there was the lies that were being bandied about.”
    — Nina Jankowicz, [10:21]

• On media ecosystem:

  • “What the right wing media ecosystem did was they created thousands of outlets to focus micro communities on Trump.”
    — Mike Madrid, [26:33]

• About mobilization over persuasion:

  • “The craft of the political consultant 30 years ago was to persuade. That is not at all the case today. The entire practice is about mobilization…”
    — Mike Madrid, [24:43]

• On the ethical/strategic dilemma:

  • “Is the only answer to the engines of outrage to spin up another engine of outrage against them? …It’s the most compelling one I have found.”
    — Ben Bradford, [32:07]

Important Segment Timestamps

• Facebook ‘Good for the World’ Experiment: [00:21 – 01:40]
• Nina Jankowicz – Ukraine beginnings & lessons: [03:48 – 05:00]
• Disinformation Governance Board saga: [05:36 – 13:19]
• The failure of slow/technical government response: [12:32 – 13:19]
• The chilling effect on academic/NGO efforts: [13:35 – 15:00]
• Ukraine’s model of info literacy via librarians: [14:59 – 15:42]
• Collapse/compromise of local news and rise of “pink slime”: [16:20 – 18:36]
• Limitations of local news for engagement: [18:36 – 19:20]
• Mike Madrid on campaign tactics: [23:43 – 29:35]
• Building a counter-infrastructure: [30:16 – 31:10]
• Concluding ethical dilemma: [32:07 – 33:40]

Conclusion

Episode Summary:
This episode of “Landslide” lays bare the bleak state of America’s information ecosystem: outrage is incentivized, truthful responses are often too slow or too tepid to gain traction, and virtually all efforts to intervene are rapidly villainized by a sophisticated, profitable right-wing media machine. Local news, while trusted, has been decimated. Experts agree on three foundational principles: tell compelling stories, meet people where they are, and use trusted messengers—but they admit even these strategies struggle in practice.

Central Dilemma: The only tactic that appears robust enough to challenge the right’s outrage engine—building a competing infrastructure of narrative, community, and emotional storytelling—is fraught with its own ethical and practical hazards. Still, as Ben Bradford concludes: “If traditional information cannot compete in front of this audience, cannot bring them back out of the bubble to a fact-based reality… is the only answer to the engines of outrage to spin up another engine of outrage against them?” For now, it may be the only real answer to the question of how to pierce the American bubble of outrage and misinformation.

For further reading and episode sources: nuancetales.com