Brian Reed (5:14)

From Placement Theory and kcrw, this is Question Everything. I'm Brian Reed and this show is my real time quest to try and find ways to make journalism better. So far on that quest, I've been talking to a lot of people who aren't so optimistic about journalism. These are reporters I admire academics, politicians, and just regular consumers of news. And when I ask them about the state of things, I hear a lot of the same points. Trust in news is at an all time low. People don't believe facts, and then people feel frustrated when they see bias in the media or when they feel lied to. And I expected to hear all of that. It's why I'm here. But recently, one of my producers came to me with a different type of story. This is the story of a couple, Dick and Emily.

Emily Newton (5:58)

Dick doesn't trust anything, no matter what it is. That comes from the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Atlantic. The Atlantic, msnbc, cnn, CNN is another. It doesn't matter what they're saying. He just automatically dismisses.

Dick Newton (6:14)

Well, they developed their own reputation.

Paige (6:16)

Okay.

Brian Reed (6:21)

Today on Question Everything, a story about a couple of more than 20 years in turmoil and how they tried to get out of it. A story where I got to see these conflicts about journalism playing out under one roof and taking a toll on one couple's marriage. A story with some lessons, not only for journalists, but for all of us, I think. Stick around. So, Zach, you're the one who's gotten to know Dick and Emily, this couple that was fighting over the news, right?

Paige (6:52)

Yeah. So their names are Richard and Emily Newton. He obviously goes by Dick. They're in their 70s. They just celebrated their 24th wedding anniversary. It's a second marriage, both of them. They fell in love singing hymns together in the choir at church. She's an alto, he's a bass.

Brian Reed (7:06)

That's sweet. Where do they live?

Paige (7:08)

They live in Orange County, California.

Brian Reed (7:10)

Okay.

Paige (7:10)

And over the last several years, they've found that they've been growing more and more miserable over something that seems so basic, which is what news they would each want to read.

Dick Newton (7:19)

In the morning, we get up and get a cup of coffee and we sit down and we start going through our emails and we sit next to each other when we're doing that. I'd say, emily, I have an article here. Would you be interested in me sending it to you? And she would say, who's it from? And if I said Breibert News or.

Paige (7:40)

Breitbart, is that what you mean?

Dick Newton (7:42)

Breitbart? That's it, yeah. Breitbart or Epoch Times was another one. She knew those were really right leaning and wasn't really interested. I was the same way with her. If she found something on Atlantic or New York Times or Washington Post and she wanted me to read it, I kind of shied away from it.

Emily Newton (8:05)

If I said to him, oh, I just read this article in the New York Times. It's really interesting. Do you want to read it? They would automatically shut down and say, no, I don't trust the New York Times. Their whatever. I realized we are not reading from the same hymnal here.

Brian Reed (8:27)

Did they have like a full sense of each other's political leanings when they met, or is this something they discovered about each other after they were married?

Paige (8:34)

Oh, no, they knew.

Dick Newton (8:35)

I pretty much knew going in that she was definitely not a Republican.

Emily Newton (8:42)

I was a bleeding heart liberal.

Dick Newton (8:44)

She was.

Paige (8:48)

So they told me that they started arguing a lot more when Trump came on the political scene. Dick supported Trump. Emily furiously did not. But then it was after election day in 2020 when they had one of their biggest disagreements.

Emily Newton (9:04)

From the beginning, I never believed that the election was fraudulently stolen. I have more faith in people and in our democracy. Dick was more open to doubt.

Dick Newton (9:20)

They were saying that there was a lot of things that were going on that shouldn't have been going on. There was packing drop boxes with ballots. One person would walk up to the ballot box and drop in all kinds of ballots into it.

Paige (9:37)

So this particular theory Dick's talking about, it's from a movie, one of the many sources that he was turning to at the time. It's called 2000 Mules. Have you heard of it?

Brian Reed (9:45)

I've heard of it, yes. I've had people talk to me about it as I've been reporting, basically.

Paige (9:50)

Yeah. So this movie, 2000 Mules, it looks like a documentary, but it's really a propaganda film. It's about a stolen election theory. It's not true, but for a while on the right, this movie seemed like it was everywhere. Everyone seemed to be talking about it. Trump actually did a screening of it at Mar a Lago. It was in something like 400 movie theaters. I mean, lots and lots of people believed it. It's made by Dinesh D'Souza. He's a right wing political commentator.

Brian Reed (10:15)

All right, and what's the gist?

Paige (10:17)

The gist is that it's about this theory that a bunch of Democratic groups were paying people who they call mules to illegally collect ballots and stuff them into ballot boxes in key swing states.

Isaac Saul (10:29)

Philadelphia alone, we've identified more than 1,100 mules.

Paige (10:34)

So there are these talking head interviews, and they're intercut with this grainy surveillance footage that shows like, this person, like, putting ballots into a box. And they're like, see, there's all the evidence you need.

Brian Reed (10:45)

But that's not real surveillance footage, or.

Paige (10:48)

It is real surveillance footage, but it's showing people just dropping off ballots legally. And when Dick watched it, like a lot of people, he thought it seemed really plausible.

Dick Newton (10:58)

It just added to the other stories that I was hearing, things that were happening in Arizona and Georgia. I'm thinking, yeah, there's stuff going on here that shouldn't be going on.

Paige (11:11)

So Dick is watching this movie, he's reading his sources, and there are so many sources that cite so many stories about election fraud, which is part of what made it so believable.

Brian Reed (11:21)

And also he's watching the president, President Trump, say over and over again that the election was fraudulent and had been stolen from him.

Paige (11:30)

Yes, exactly. And then Emily's consuming all of her own sources, and they say the exact opposite. And it all added to this feeling that it wasn't safe for them to talk about politics. Did that feel different from other arguments or disagreements you'd had about non political things over your marriage?

Emily Newton (11:48)

It did, because there was no give and take. We can argue about, you know, what we're going to spend our money on. We can argue about our kids, you know, we can argue about the neighborhood, but we usually come to some sort of resolution. This whole thing about Trump, there's no resolution.

Paige (12:10)

How did that feel?

Emily Newton (12:12)

Frustrating, because I know my husband. I know what a smart, sensitive, thoughtful person he is. He's very generous. I know all that about him. And to have him suddenly be aligned to this person who I found absolutely despicable was very troubling.

Dick Newton (12:40)

She wouldn't talk to me. She basically just, I don't want to talk about it. I would try, but it just, it wasn't going to happen. And if it did, we'd end up yelling at each other. And then I started thinking, wow, I'm letting politics get involved in our marriage. Because I was really angry at the time and I just couldn't stand that. I never thought that the politics was important enough to jeopardize what she and I had together.

Paige (13:11)

Did you feel like that it could do that, that politics could jeopardize it?

Dick Newton (13:15)

Yes, I really did. I think, what did I get myself into here? Maybe I did something I shouldn't have done.

Paige (13:22)

What's the mistake you're talking about?

Dick Newton (13:24)

Having someone that was so far left that I couldn't live with.

Paige (13:28)

Oof. Yeah. This was a pretty low point in their marriage and they told me that they really wanted to find a way out of it.

Emily Newton (13:35)

We were both looking for some sort of, I don't want to say Neutral but impartial news source.

Dick Newton (13:41)

I was hungry for something that I could count on to peel the layers away and really show what's in the heart of it.

Isaac Saul (13:59)

We'll be right back after this quick commercial break.

Brian Reed (14:05)

The new Boost Mobile network is offering unlimited talk, text and data for just $25 a month for life. That sounds like a threat. Then how do you think we should say it?

Paige (14:14)

Unlimited talk, text and data for just 25amonth for the rest of your life? I don't know.

Brian Reed (14:19)

Until your ultimate demise. What if we just say forever? Okay, $25 a month. Forever.

Paige (14:25)

Get unlimited talk, text and Data for just $25 a month with Boost Mobile. Forever. After 30 gigabytes, customers may experience slower speeds. Customers will pay $25 a month as long as they remain active on the Boost Unlimited plan.

Madison H. (14:36)

If you're a parent or share a fridge with someone. Instacart is about to make grocery shopping so much easier. Because with family carts, you can share a cart with your partner and each add the items you want. Since between the two of you, odds are you'll both remember everything you need. And this way you'll never have to eat milkless cere. Minimize the stress of the weekly shop with family carts, download the Instacart app and get delivery in as fast as 30 minutes. Plus enjoy. $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees apply for three orders in 14 days. Excludes restaurants.

Paige (15:18)

They started reading different online news sources that branded themselves as being unbiased, plant free, that kind of thing.

Brian Reed (15:25)

Interesting.

Paige (15:26)

And then they finally landed on something. It was a newsletter. Dick seemed to like it. Okay, so did Emily.

Emily Newton (15:35)

We both agreed. Oh yes, let's read Tangle.

Brian Reed (15:38)

Tangle.

Paige (15:39)

Yes, that's the newsletter. And it not only helped fix this problem in their marriage, but it also did something for Dick that no other news source up to this point was able to do.

Brian Reed (15:50)

All right, so tell me about it.

Paige (15:51)

It's this daily newsletter, comes to your email. It's like a substack type thing. It's run by a guy named Isaac Saul. He started it, he writes it. They have about 135,000 subscribers. It comes to your inbox every weekday. And each issue is all about one topic from the news. What they try to do is summarize two or three of the best articles and arguments from right leaning sources about that topic. And then they do the same thing with left leaning sources. And the whole premise of the newsletter is that there are people out there like Dick and Emily that are reading completely separate sources. And why not put all of those in one place so you can actually read what those arguments are.

Emily Newton (16:28)

I think probably the first thing that astounded me was the transparency, that when they make a mistake, they correct it as soon as they realize it and they put it right up front.

Brian Reed (16:42)

How is that different than corrections in a newspaper?

Paige (16:45)

A little bit. It's the way that they do it. So corrections in a newspaper, you know, traditionally they are at the end of the article. There'll be like a little footnote. Actually, we got this wrong. It's been changed above. We regret the error, you know, in like little print italics at the bottom. Tangle's approach to corrections, It's a bit different.

Brian Reed (17:02)

Can you show me?

Paige (17:03)

Yes. This is from August 21st. And at the very, very top, the very first thing that you see is correction, period. In big letters. In our coverage of the Medicare drug pricing negotiations yesterday, we said that 4 of the Medicare Part D drugs for which the government had negotiated lower prices were overprescribed in the United States. That was false. We misread the abstract of a study and rushed our review process when we included it. A sincere thank you to the 10 or so readers who caught the error. And then in italics, right below that. This is our 114th correction in Tangle's 263 week history and our first correction since August 13th. We track corrections and place them at the top of the newsletter in an effort to maximize transparency with readers.

Brian Reed (17:49)

So this is different than a newspaper, I see.

Paige (17:51)

Yeah.

Brian Reed (17:51)

What else did Dick and Emily notice about Tangle?

Paige (17:53)

Yeah, so they noticed that it wasn't so sensational. It was more measured or even handed in their language. So, for instance, Tangle noticed that readers on the right would sometimes unsubscribe from the newsletter after reading a phrase like undocumented immigrant. But they also didn't think it was right to call someone illegal or an illegal alien. So they did this big internal review and they settled on the term unauthorized migrant.

Emily Newton (18:17)

We really like that approach, trying to filter out all the trigger words or the words that were very highly volatile emotionally, which helps both of us. Then consider the issue with less emotion about it. I'm not going to say with no emotion, we would still argue, but with less emotion about it. And then we loved Isaac's take.

Brian Reed (18:42)

What's Isaac's take?

Paige (18:44)

So Isaac's take. Isaac refers to Isaac Saul. He's the founder and writer of the newsletter. And at the end of every issue, he spends a long time writing his opinion. And these can be long. And he says exactly how he feels about the issue after having researched it and just describes his own feeling about it.

Brian Reed (19:03)

Wait, do you have an example of this?

Paige (19:05)

Yeah, here, I'll send one to you. We can look at it. All right.

Brian Reed (19:07)

This was earlier this month. Hurricane Helene and the disaster relief efforts.

Paige (19:12)

Yes. The first part is just the topic. Then they summarize what the right is saying, they summarize what the left is saying. But then at the end you see my take, and so I'm obviously not going to read this whole thing. It is.

Isaac Saul (19:24)

Yeah.

Brian Reed (19:24)

This is long. Wow.

Paige (19:25)

2,200 words. I looked.

Brian Reed (19:27)

It's like a whole essay. But what's his take on Hurricane Helene?

Paige (19:30)

Yeah, so before we get to his take, I think you need to understand what he's responding to here. There've been a lot of attacks on the Biden administration from the right saying that they're doing nothing to help people who've been affected by this hurricane.

Brian Reed (19:42)

Like actually nothing.

Paige (19:43)

Well, that they failed to rise to the occasion, basically. So Isaac, he really puts a stake in the ground and says, there's a big problem with this narrative. It's all nonsense, it's all a lie. And then he writes, I hate writing pieces like this. It's not my job to defend the federal government from lies. And it's hard to write a piece like this without reading it. Like I'm openly shilling for Harris or Biden. I. I am not. I'm not here to do their PR or protect their reputations. However, I do care about our information ecosystem. I care about reliable, accurate information being shared widely. I also care about the North Carolinians in danger right now. Not just because they're Americans and it's a state I love, but also because my mom, my aunt, my brother and his family, my sister in law and my niece, they all live in North Carolina. So the horrors we're all witnessing on the news hit close to home. Here's the truth, though. Biden and Harris have actually pulled every lever federal executives can in a situation like this. None of the critics that I posted above can say exactly what they want them to do that they aren't already doing. And if you're planning on writing in to tell me that I am shilling for Harris or being a left wing hack by calling out lies online, you better be prepared to tell me exactly what I've gotten wrong here. And then he goes on for several more paragraphs.

Brian Reed (20:50)

Oh, wow. Interesting. I can feel his resentment at having to defend the Democratic administration.

Paige (20:57)

Yeah, he's like, I don't want to do this just to defend them. But in this case, they're doing everything they can, and that's what the facts show. And so I'm going to say that.

Brian Reed (21:03)

Right.

Paige (21:04)

And this part of the newsletter was something that Dick and Emily really came to appreciate.

Emily Newton (21:08)

He was very clear about what his biases were. That made him extremely trustworthy. More often than not, when we get to the end and we read my take, we look at each other and say, yeah, that's how I feel.

Paige (21:25)

They started realizing that they actually agreed with each other on a lot of things and they were able to talk about it. And eventually something pretty remarkable happened. So remember how Dick was totally convinced the election had been stolen? He watched 2000 Mules. He read all of those conspiracies about it. So as Dick and Emily were starting to have this shared understanding of the news, again, Tingle did the thing for Dick that no other source seemed to be able to do that Emily wasn't able to do. And that was proved to him that the 2020 election had not been stolen.

Dick Newton (21:54)

The only thing that changed my mind completely was the fact that I started reading Tangle. And it's only because I trust Isaac and his team so much.

Isaac Saul (22:09)

It's incredibly fulfilling, to be honest.

Paige (22:12)

This is Isaac Saul.

Brian Reed (22:13)

He's the guy who writes Tangle.

Paige (22:14)

Yes.

Isaac Saul (22:15)

Just like it's actually, like, so rewarding to. Because the election fraud stuff in particular was one of the most difficult times of my life as a reporter. The month after that election was like, dark, stressful, really, really hard work. And hearing that somebody had that reaction that their mind was actually changed, even one person, it's like, yeah, it makes me want to cry.

Brian Reed (22:48)

So am I getting this right? It seems like Isaac and this newsletter, Tangle, they seem to have done something that I feel like so many journalists, myself included, have been banging our heads against the wall trying to figure out what to do, which is how do you get people to believe the evidence that the 2020 election was not stolen from Donald Trump? Something like a third of Americans believe it. It was. It's really threatening our ability to function. How do you present those facts and get people to believe them?

Paige (23:18)

Yeah.

Brian Reed (23:19)

And you're saying Tangle did it.

Paige (23:20)

In this case, Tangle did it. Yeah. For Dick, Tangle did it.

Isaac Saul (23:33)

We'll be right back after this quick commercial break.

Paige (23:39)

This tax season at Boost Mobile, when.

Brian Reed (23:40)

You buy six months on our best unlimited plans, we will give you the.

Paige (23:43)

Next six months for free, plus enter to up to $10,000 and double your tax refund. Your refund, your rules requires up front Payment, taxes and fees. Extra terms and exclusions apply. Visit boostmobile.com for full offer terms and sweeps details.

Isaac Saul (23:54)

Wait, what is that sound?

Paige (23:57)

What are you chewing on? My socks.

Brian Reed (23:59)

The furniture.

Paige (24:01)

Not my new sneakers Again.

Madison H. (24:05)

Dogs love to chew, but not everything they chew is good for them. That's why Earth Animal created no Hide Chews, the safe, natural alternative to rawhide or whatever else they shouldn't be chewing. Made with simple, sustainable ingredients and flavors dogs love, they're irresistibly good for them and your peace of mind. Give your dog something better to chew. Get no Hide chews today@earthanimal.com.

Brian Reed (24:40)

All right, so how did Tangle do this? How did Isaac, the guy who runs this, do this?

Paige (24:44)

Yeah, so Isaac did a ton of work around this whole election denialism issue. It wasn't just one newsletter. Every time a new claim about how the election may have been stolen surfaced, he would spend all this time running it down, explaining in detail why it was false. He did that in the days and weeks immediately following the election. He continued doing it as new claims surfaced in the years since.

Brian Reed (25:04)

But a lot of news sources have done this, you know, looked at these different claims about how the election was stolen and showed why they aren't true, and looked at the court cases where no evidence surfaced and all this stuff.

Paige (25:13)

Right, they did. But Isaac was doing a lot of research. Like, for example, in the weeks following the election, right after he did this 400 tweet long thread that was going in detail into each claim. He was really, really deep on this. But I don't think it was only the research that helped convince Dick. There's something else that Isaac did, and it was in his tone and how he approached this whole issue, especially around the claims, that seemed more persuasive. He didn't just write them off. He assessed them seriously. He presented them seriously. And that didn't make Dick feel stupid. Here's Isaac.

Isaac Saul (25:49)

Some of the stuff was really convincing. And proving that they were wrong was not as simple as saying, like, oh, this is just, like, conspiracy nonsense. Like the ballot stuffing thing, that was a plausible way to steal an election in 2022.

Paige (26:07)

He actually dedicated an entire newsletter, A deep dive into 2000 Mules, that movie we were talking about.

Isaac Saul (26:14)

So when that movie came out and everybody just, like, laughs at Denish D'Souza, I was kind of like, I'm gonna watch it and, like, take some of these allegations seriously and see what's up. It turned out they're all bull. But, like, you only know that if you actually do Some of the work.

Paige (26:31)

Can I actually just read you what he wrote at the top of that newsletter?

Brian Reed (26:34)

Yeah, please.

Paige (26:35)

So the title of the newsletter is an honest look at 2000 the new stolen Election Theory. And this is how he opens it. I consider myself to be both a skeptic and an open minded person. I am deeply cynical about our government, believe intelligence agencies are covering up the truth about UFOs and don't feel any particular loyalty to any major political parties. I generally distrust authority, government agencies and politicians. But I do believe it's wise to consult expert opinions and advice. I love a good conspiracy, a good cover up and a great story. A stolen presidential election would be an all timer in every regard. A story so gigantic, a conspiracy of corruption and power so unthinkable that the idea alone is tantalizing enough, I almost want to believe it. And then he goes on to dissect every point made in the film and show why it's inaccurate. But that's how he starts.

Brian Reed (27:26)

Interesting. Okay, so that's the presentation difference you're talking about.

Paige (27:31)

Yeah, and I'll just say that that framing, it's really different from how other outlets covered this film. Like for example, there's a New York Times headline about the movie. It was quote, a big lie in a new package. There was a Washington Post headline that was quote, 2,000 mules offers the least convincing election fraud theory yet. And look, I mean that's all true, it is a lie. But Isaac realized he's probably not going to convince someone who already believes the lie by leading with that. So instead he levels with people, explains where he's coming from and all the research he did, and then explains what he found about the claims. And so this was what Dick was reading.

Dick Newton (28:08)

After reading his article, what I realized was, and he even admitted there was some things that were happening that shouldn't have been happening in some of the polls, but it wouldn't have changed the dynamics of who won and who lost at all. That was actually the first time I really realized it for sure. And that really opened my eyes to how corrupt that was. That really sold me on the fact that the election wasn't stolen.

Isaac Saul (28:41)

What I was thinking in my head was like, I want to bring all these people in my life under one roof and I want them to be able to read a news source that like the, you know, Trump MAGA bro will trust and like the left wing Bernie bro will trust.

Brian Reed (28:59)

What was the like origin story for Tangle for Isaac? Like he was a reporter before this.

Paige (29:06)

Yeah, he was a Reporter. He worked for Huffington Post a couple of other places. And he told me that he's always been the type of person that's brought together people from different backgrounds in his personal life. Maybe they don't agree and he's often mediating between those people. But really the inspiration for Tangle came out of his own news consumption.

Isaac Saul (29:23)

The idea for Tangle basically came from the Trump era of like, Trump proposes a border wall. And I'm like, he's like proposing a 2000 mile border wall. This sounds totally insane. I can't imagine the best argument for this, but I really want to understand, is this something that would actually work? And in order to grasp what was actually happening, my day would be like, I'm going to go read the New York Times editorial board, I'm going to read their immigration reporting about it. Then I'm going to go to Fox News and scroll through their opinion page and search for Trump's border wall. And then maybe I'll listen to like a Ben Shapiro podcast. And then I'll go listen to Pod Save America. And then, you know, I'll watch the Daily show, do a bit about, or watch John Oliver, and then I'll spend like an hour on, you know, some Tucker Carlson special about it. And then I'll do like 10 hours of all this consuming the news and I'll sit down and I'll be like, okay. I think I now have a really good understanding of everybody's perspective, positive and negative about this policy proposal. Why can't I just find that one place that should exist somewhere?

Brian Reed (30:34)

Do you know who's reading the newsletter?

Paige (30:37)

I kind of do, based on a reader survey of Tangle subscribers. So a little bit over half of the subscribers are men, around 57%. Its SKU is very white, just below 90% of readers. It's US based, but Isaac says it does reach something like 55 other countries. And about a third of the readers say that they're on the left, a third on the right, and the last third are either center or independent. Wow.

Brian Reed (30:58)

So pretty evenly politically split.

Paige (31:01)

Yeah, pretty even split politically. And I did talk to some other readers of the newsletter who said that it had an impact on them. Similar to Dick and Emily.

Brian Reed (31:09)

Like, who?

Paige (31:09)

I met this one guy at like a political event in New York, and he told me it's basically the only news that he reads. I talked to a new reader of Tangle, a journalist actually, and he said that there were some arguments from the right that he'd just written off, but reading Tangle actually helped him see that they Had a point. And I even spoke to another guy who, like Dick, had his mind changed about the 2020 election. I assumed that Donald Trump was telling me the truth, that they had firm.

Isaac Saul (31:37)

Evidence that was definitely manipulation of the ballots.

Paige (31:42)

This is a guy named Rick.

Brian Reed (31:43)

Wait, Rick and Dick?

Paige (31:44)

Rick and Dick.

Brian Reed (31:45)

Okay.

Paige (31:46)

Both Richard, if you want to be technical about it.

Brian Reed (31:48)

Got it. Go on.

Paige (31:49)

It's a really similar story to Dick and Emily's. Rick was a big Trump supporter, voted for him twice. Rick's son is on the left politically. They were arguing about the news a lot, and the son started forwarding Rick the newsletter, including issues that were about the stolen election.

Isaac Saul (32:03)

Claims they weren't just laughing it off. I have a trust in their news.

Dick Newton (32:09)

Gathering and presentation abilities.

Isaac Saul (32:12)

Head and shoulders above any other news gathering source.

Brian Reed (32:16)

I have a trust level there that's.

Paige (32:19)

And again, like Dick and Emily, Rick and his son have mended their relationship. They can talk to each other about the news again. And now he doesn't think the election was stolen. And that feeling of being lied to, it's actually convinced him not to vote for Trump this year.

Brian Reed (32:33)

Really? Yeah.

Isaac Saul (32:35)

The only reason I wouldn't vote for.

Paige (32:36)

Him because he made me look foolish.

Isaac Saul (32:39)

In front of my son.

Brian Reed (32:43)

You know, Zach, you mentioned the importance of striking the right tone when we're presenting evidence, especially evidence that's like, contrary to what someone believes, and that does seem important. But also, you know, just hearing the story of Rick and his son alongside the story of Dick and Emily, his wife, like I do, just wonder, does a person have to be motivated to get along with someone they love to repair a relationship essentially, in order to change their mind?

Paige (33:10)

Yeah, it's a good question. Wanting to see something from someone else's perspective, the perspective of someone you love. It seems like that doesn't hurt.

Brian Reed (33:18)

You know, it's interesting thinking about it. It's not exactly that tangle moved both of them towards the center and they met in the middle, but it moved Dick more towards Emily, basically.

Paige (33:32)

Yeah. I mean, obviously it would make for a better story if they each move toward the center. I think that's sort of met in the middle, what we want from a story like this. Exactly. Met in the middle, but it's really more like Dick believed something that wasn't true, and then he was the one that moved toward facts.

Brian Reed (33:49)

How does Emily say it changed her? Like, does she say it changed her?

Paige (33:53)

So she told me that she didn't have as dramatic a change as Dick. It wasn't like she believed something that wasn't true. And had her mind changed. But she says she does read the news differently now. For instance, she told me that hearing some of Kamala Harris policy proposals and how before she would have taken some of them at face value as good ideas. Now she says she's thinking more critically about them.

Brian Reed (34:14)

How are they doing these days?

Paige (34:16)

Yeah, the last time I spoke to them, they really did seem to be in a better place. I think on the surface it seemed like their problem was that they'd been talking across this political divide, but their real problem was that they weren't agreeing on facts. They weren't agreeing on what was true. That's what made it so bitter.

Emily Newton (34:34)

It's a huge relief Dick and I can now agree on more or disagree based on the same information.

Dick Newton (34:44)

At least I don't feel like I'm walking on aid shells if I want to mention something to her. I mean, she's her own person. I'm not going to tell her who to vote for. And she wouldn't listen to me anyway.

Emily Newton (34:56)

Now we're on the same hymnbook, more or less. Although he might be reading a different page than me at the time, but it's generally the same hymn book.

Paige (35:04)

But I mean, agreeing on the same set of facts being in the same book, that's only going to get you so far.

Brian Reed (35:09)

Who's Dick voting for?

Dick Newton (35:11)

You know, as far as I'm concerned, I don't like Trump as a person. The way he handles himself, the things he says, it bothers me a lot. But the one thing that I did like about him was his policies. And so I'm definitely leaning towards Trump still.

Emily Newton (35:30)

Okay, that's Dick's take.

Dick Newton (35:33)

That's my take.

Emily Newton (35:34)

That's the first time that he's verbalized to me that he's thinking about voting for Trump. My heart just stopped.

Brian Reed (35:47)

Emily and Dick Newton In Orange County.

Paige (35:49)

California.

Brian Reed (35:53)

Question everything is a production of KCRW and placement theory. Today's episode was produced by Zach St. Louis and edited by Jonathan Goldstein. Our show is made by me by executive producer Robin Simeon and production intern Emily Maltaire. Neil Drumming is a contributing editor. Sophie Cassis is a contributing producer. Fact checking by Kalyn Lynch. Sound design by Brendan Baker. Music by Matt McGinley. Special thanks to Lisa Pollack. Our partners at KCRW include Arnie Seiple, Gina Delvak, Teja Lajimera and Jennifer Farrow.

Paige (36:33)

To make switching to the new Boost.

Brian Reed (36:35)

Mobile risk free, we're offering a 30.

Paige (36:37)

Day money back guarantee.

Brian Reed (36:38)

So why wouldn't you switch from Verizon or T Mobile because you have nothing to lose.

Paige (36:42)

Boost Mobile is offering a 30 day money back guarantee. No, I asked.

Brian Reed (36:45)

Why wouldn't you switch from Verizon or T Mobile?

Paige (36:48)

Wouldn't because you love wasting money as a way to punish yourself because your mother never showed you enough love as a child. Whoa, easy there.

Dick Newton (36:57)

Yeah.

Paige (36:57)

Applies to online activations. Requires port in and autopay. Customers activating in stores may be charged non refundable activation fees.

Zach St. Louis (37:04)

Dear old work platform it's not you, it's us. Actually, it is you. Endless onboarding, constant IT bottlenecks. We've had enough. We need a platform that just gets us. And to be honest, we've met someone new. They're called Monday.com and it was love at first onboarding. Their beautiful dashboards, their customizable workflows got us floating on a digital cloud nine. So no hard feelings, but we're moving on. Monday.com, the first work platform you'll love to use.

Madison H. (37:34)

What makes a great pair of glasses? At Warby Parker, it's all the invisible extras without the extra cost. Their designer quality frames start at $95 including prescription lenses plus scratch resistant, smudge resistant and anti reflective coatings and UV protection and free adjustments for life. To find your next pair of glasses, sunglasses or contact lenses, or to find the Warby Parker store nearest you, head over to warbyparker.com that's warbyparker.