Podcast Summary

The Gist — The Spiel Saturday Show

Host: Mike Pesca (Peach Fish Productions)
Date: August 16, 2025
Duration: ~30 minutes

Episode Overview

In this Saturday edition of The Gist, Mike Pesca breaks format to present two “spiels” from the week that dig into the meaning and impact of misinformation, the responsibilities of journalists, and the dangers of false narratives—on both the left and right. Pesca examines an on-air statistical error by journalist Matt Taibbi and novelist Walter Kirn, using it to highlight confirmation bias and the rare humility of public correction. He then discusses the implications of a tragic shooting at the CDC in Atlanta, using it as a springboard to question claims about the deadly consequences of misinformation and to clarify the distinction between erroneous reporting and true ethical culpability.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Revisiting Format & Themes

• Pesca introduces a break from the usual structure (“one from the Vault, one from the week”) to focus on two recent topical spiels that tackle the definition, misuse, and ethical ramifications of the word “misinformation.”
• He emphasizes the importance of precision in language—especially when words like “misinformation” are used to justify ethical judgments or serious consequences.
  • “This whole debate is about the meaning of words.” (03:08)

2. The Taibbi & Kern Crime Stats Flub (06:04–16:15)

Background

• Matt Taibbi and Walter Kern (Racket News) criticized the Washington D.C. police department’s murder statistics, misinterpreting a “year to date” metric as a projection or fabrication rather than a simple up-to-date comparison.
• Pesca guides listeners through their error and subsequent, if reluctant, recognition.

Key Moments & Quotes

• Taibbi and Kern’s Setup

  • “Has anyone guessed that… they have a number already for homicides for 2025?” — Taibbi, (08:20)
  • “That includes free crime. Right, right.” — Kern, echoing sci-fi notions of ‘pre-crime’, (08:49)

• Pesca’s Clarity

  • Pesca clarifies the stats: “That’s not what the phrase year to date means...it means up until that press release came out, which was August 11th.” (09:15)
  • He notes the error was clear if one simply read the release.

• Taibbi and Kern’s Realization

  • After more than 30 minutes of joking and critique:
    • “Wait, I think we may have missed something. Oh, no, it was year to date. Oh, damn.” — Taibbi, (12:10)
    • “Well, that’s what it is. That’s what it is. We just made a whole bunch of jokes about nothing.” — Taibbi, (12:23)
    • “I’m still not convinced, by the way… but maybe we were.” — Kern, demonstrating lingering reluctance, (13:39)

• Pesca’s Critique

  • Faults the pair for allowing their critique of officialdom and mainstream media to cloud their judgment, even after the mistake was acknowledged:
    • “His ‘I don’t have an agenda’ agenda is an agenda. But his basic agenda is to prove, even when proof is lacking, that the mainstream media is untrustworthy.” (13:48)
  • Acknowledges Taibbi’s value as a critic, but warns against trading one form of media trust for another:
    • “I do consider his critiques and take them to heart, though. Don’t swallow them whole.” (14:21)

Notable Insights

• The temptation to vilify perceived enemies or to “dunk” on the establishment can override careful scrutiny and fairness.
• Even independent journalists can fall into confirmation bias, especially if it suits their brand or business model.
• There is a crucial distinction between supplementing mainstream media and claiming to wholly replace it.

3. The Shooting at the CDC and the ‘War on Misinformation’ (17:17–25:16)

Incident Recap

• A gunman (Patrick Joseph White), influenced by anti-CDC sentiments and apparent mental illness, attacked the CDC in Atlanta, killing a police officer.
• Public commentary quickly blamed “misinformation” and “disinformation,” suggesting a direct line from falsehoods to violence.

Quotes from Officials

• “There is a direct line from the vilification of the CDC during COVID, in the deliberate lies and mis/disinformation that continues today.” — Anonymous CDC official, quoted in Washington Post, (17:55)
• “The responsibility for this lies not just with the shooter, but those who have been spreading disinformation and misinformation against public health.” — Ali Khan (University of Nebraska), (18:36)

Pesca’s Analysis

• On Culpability

  • Disputes the blanket link between misinformation and lethal violence:
    • “No one forces a shooter to shoot… Shooters often have mental illness...but that doesn’t go far enough.” (18:38)
  • Most misinformed people do not become violent; equating the two is dangerous and reductive.

• On Misinformation

  • Misinformation is simply “things that aren’t true; supposed facts that are not so.”
    • He provides notable examples of Covid-era misinformation from high officials (Biden, Walensky, Fauci).
    • “You’re not going to get Covid if you get these vaccinations… Vaccinated people do not carry the virus…” (19:56–20:36)

• On Ethical Responsibility

  • Drawing a straight line from false claims (even if deliberate) to murder goes too far:
    • “There is not a direct line between misinformation and shooting people. There needn't be. And those responsible for misinforming do not bear the responsibilities of a murderer. Otherwise, we'd all be murderers.” (22:50)
  • Deliberate disinformation is more culpable, but it is not synonymous with murder.
  • Argues for a dangerous standard:
    • “When we start talking about and treating the presence of misinformation as culpability in crime and murder, it is a dangerous, dangerous standard.” (22:45)

• Final Principle

  • Emphasizes responsibility for words and the difference between making mistakes and acting with malice–but draws the line at culpability for violent acts taken by others.

Notable Moment

• Pesca acknowledges the complexity: while incendiary rhetoric (e.g., Russell Vought’s comments about wanting bureaucrats “traumatically affected” (24:50)) can be irresponsible and should be criticized, individuals remain responsible for their actions.

4. Key Takeaways

• Precision in Language is Vital:
  Sloppy or agenda-driven use of terms like “misinformation” short-circuits meaningful debate and can be misused to justify extreme measures.
• Confirmation Bias is Ubiquitous:
  Regardless of their branding as mainstream or independent, journalists are vulnerable to agenda-driven errors—and slow or reluctant correction only deepens distrust.
• Ethics and Proportionality:
  While spreading inaccuracies is wrong, it is crucial to distinguish between a reporting error, ideological fervor, and incitement to crime.
• Personal Responsibility:
  Each person is ultimately responsible for their actions, and the urge to collapse all nuance into moral panic over “misinformation” should be resisted.

Segment Timestamps

| Timestamp | Segment | |-----------------|-----------------------------------------| | 01:06 | Pesca introduces break from usual format | | 06:04–16:15 | Taibbi & Kern “year-to-date” stats debacle | | 12:23–13:48 | Taibbi & Kern admit error, Pesca’s analysis | | 17:17–25:16 | CDC shooting, misinformation culpability debate | | 19:56–20:36 | Examples of government misinformation | | 22:45–22:50 | Danger of equating misinformation with murder | | 24:50 | Russell Vought “traumatically affected” quote |

Notable Quotes

• On confirmation bias:
  • “His ‘I don’t have an agenda’ agenda is an agenda.” — Mike Pesca (13:48)
• On responsibility:
  • “There is not a direct line between misinformation and shooting people. There needn't be. And those responsible for misinforming do not bear the responsibilities of a murderer. Otherwise, we'd all be murderers.” — Mike Pesca (22:50)
• On precision:
  • “This whole debate is about the meaning of words.” — Mike Pesca (03:08)
• On the CDC’s role:
  • “It is also true that public health officials made mistakes… So, yeah, the information was not always correct, but that of course doesn’t mean you should shoot anyone over it.” — Mike Pesca (18:19–21:00)

Tone

Pesca is sharp, skeptical, and moderately self-deprecating, combining detailed critique with humor and a commitment to clarity. He’s willing to challenge both mainstream and alternative media but is careful to avoid dogmatic conclusions—preferring instead to push for nuance, self-reflection, and the ethical high ground in public discourse.