The Good Fight Podcast — Episode Summary

Episode: Dan Williams on Misinformation
Host: Yascha Mounk
Guest: Dan Williams (Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of Sussex)
Date: July 19, 2025

Episode Overview

In this rich and nuanced episode, Yascha Mounk welcomes philosopher Dan Williams for a deep dive into the concept of "misinformation" and its role in today's political discourse. Williams critiques the vagueness and overuse of the term, explores the roots and impact of misinformation narratives post-2016, and discusses problems arising from both populist "fake news" and elite media errors. The conversation covers the limitations of fact-checking, the problem of institutional trust, and the dangers of overcorrecting for bias. Williams is skeptical of the mainstream response to misinformation and highlights the philosophical and practical difficulties in policing information.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Emergence and Problems with Misinformation Discourse

(04:55, 08:05, 10:58, 13:54)

• Roots in 2016 Events
  • Williams traces the current misinformation obsession to Brexit and Trump’s 2016 victory, which shocked many establishment observers. A narrative arose that false online communication was responsible.
  • Dan Williams (04:55): “People wanted to explain what's going on with this sort of populist backlash...one of the narratives that emerged...was that it had something to do with misinformation.”
• Definition Dilemma
  • The term "misinformation" bundles together lies, mistakes, and mere disagreements, making it so broad as to be useless or dangerously subjective.
  • Yascha Mounk (06:41): “It falls into two kinds of categories… we often now say misinformation for what traditionally would have called a lie...then there's this category where people are just making arguments we don't like.”
  • Williams argues for a narrow vs. broad dilemma:
    • Narrow: Fake news exists but is less widespread and impactful than feared.
    • Broad: “If you broaden the definition...it plausibly is quite widespread and...impactful, but then it becomes subjective and it's not so clear why...the New York Times...are in a perfectly objective position to detect it.” (10:58)

2. Impact of Fake News and Audience Segmentation

(09:36, 10:58)

• Williams points out that extreme conspiracy content overwhelmingly preaches to the choir—people already disposed to believe it.
  • Dan Williams (10:58): “It’s not a cross section of the population engaging with that kind of content… the idea this is behind, for example, Trump’s election victory or Brexit, it’s just not a credible theory..."

3. The Dangers of Concept Creep

(10:58, 16:57)

• The expansion of "misinformation" to include partial truths or selective reporting means it risks indicting almost all partisan or focused communication, on left or right.
  • Dan Williams (16:57): “What you’re going to view as misinformation...is going to be shaped by a whole range of complex considerations...it’s clearly going to be highly contentious and...context sensitive.”

4. Elite Misinformation and Media Hypocrisy

(18:37, 20:33, 23:01)

• Williams agrees with Matt Yglesias that elite, institutional misinformation is real but often overlooked by those focused on the right-wing fringe.
  • Dan Williams (18:37): “Within our sort of mainstream knowledge producing institutions...there is a lot of false and misleading communication.”
• Climate Change as Example
  • Both host and guest discuss alarmist climate reporting that distorts or exaggerates research findings to fit dramatic headlines.
  • Yascha Mounk (20:33): “By the time that this makes it...to the headline writer, it becomes, you're going to be unable to eat breakfast because of climate change.”
  • Dan Williams (23:01): “You get a lot of false or misleading or biased communication within these institutions… But...the scale, the brazenness, the...conspiracy theorizing, it's so much more extreme...on the populist right...”

5. Institutional Trust and the "180-ism" Trap

(25:43, 28:23)

• The loss of trust in mainstream institutions fuels two unhealthy responses: uncritical trust in the "current thing," or knee-jerk opposition to whatever elites say ("180-ism").
  • Yascha Mounk (25:43): “Outsourcing your views in this way is really bad… that unfortunately is going to lead you at least into the same amount of epistemological murkiness and probably into even greater problems.”
• The solution is not simple mistrust or blind acceptance but a critical, nuanced engagement with both the existence of institutional bias and its differentiation from outright conspiracy-mongering.

6. The Role of Expertise and the Need for Institutional Reform

(28:23, 29:49, 31:40)

• Williams insists there’s no alternative to expertise in a complex society but points to dangerous professional and social disincentives to challenge institutional groupthink.
  • Dan Williams (28:23): “There's simply no alternative to expertise… The overarching lesson...is it's so important to, on the one hand, improve these institutions as best we can.”
• Mounk laments that dissenters from prevailing consensus are punished even when they’re eventually proven right.
  • Yascha Mounk (29:49): “The really striking thing is that you're not readmitted to the community of the rightful. In retrospect, even if what you argue turned out to be right...”

7. The Real Source of Misinformation Susceptibility: Institutional Mistrust

(31:40, 33:53)

• Loss of trust in institutions is the “overarching explanation” for why people seek out conspiratorial or anti-establishment content.
  • Dan Williams (31:40): “If it's perceived that these institutions are politicized...it's devastating for that issue of trust. And then a symptom of that mistrust…is people start seeking out counter establishment content…”

8. The “Everyone is Biased” Bias

(33:53, 34:42, 37:48, 39:11)

• Williams explains the psychological and epistemological roots of political bias: tribalism, motivated reasoning, reliance on indirect testimony.

• He warns against naive realism (seeing disagreement only as stupidity or evil) but also against excessive cynicism ("everyone is biased, so nothing is true").

  • Dan Williams (34:42): “Even if we were perfectly rational…the truth about [politics] is so uncertain…even if we were perfectly rational as individuals, we should still expect us to be in error and to have partial perspectives on reality in all sorts of different ways.”

• The crucial insight is to recognize both the universality of bias and the reality that some actors (notably, some populist leaders) are much more egregiously untruthful.

• Dan Williams (39:11): “Everyone is fallible…and that influences even our most...elite, knowledge producing institutions. At the same time, there's bias and there's bias, right?...there are really profound differences in the degree to which certain individuals and certain institutions are committed to truth.”

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “The idea that this is behind, for example, Trump's election victory or Brexit, it's just not a credible theory of public opinion information.” — Dan Williams (00:01, 10:58)
• “If you break with a consensus...not only do you then sustain extreme attacks...but the really striking thing is that you're not readmitted to the community of the rightful. In retrospect, even if what you argue turned out to be right...” — Yascha Mounk (29:49)
• “There's bias and there's bias, right? There's ordinary run of the mill human bias and then there's, as I've already mentioned, someone like Elon Musk...the sheer scale and brazenness of his lying, where it falls way outside the scope of ordinary bias.” — Dan Williams (39:11)
• “Outsourcing your views in this way is really bad. ... That's going to get you into even deeper epistemological trouble.” — Yascha Mounk (25:43)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:01 — Williams on conspiracy content and electoral outcomes
• 04:55 — Origins of the misinformation narrative post-2016
• 06:41 — Problems with the breadth of “misinformation” as a label
• 09:36 — Psychological plausibility: who consumes fake news?
• 10:58 — Concept creep and the dilemma in defining misinformation
• 13:54 — Broadening the definition and its impact on debate
• 16:57 — The subjectivity and politicization problem
• 18:37, 20:33 — Elite misinformation and distorting science coverage
• 23:01 — Comparing elite media errors and populist lies
• 25:43 — Institutional trust, “current thing”, and 180-ism
• 28:23 — Challenge of relying on and improving expertise
• 31:40 — Why mistrust leads to seeking alternative info sources
• 33:53 — Introducing the “Everyone is biased bias”
• 34:42, 37:48, 39:11 — Depths of psychological and epistemological bias

Conclusion

This episode offers a sobering, philosophically rigorous perspective on misinformation—one that avoids both naive optimism about elite knowledge production and the nihilism of radical skepticism. Mounk and Williams urge listeners to be wary of lazy narratives about fake news, recognize the deep psychological and social roots of bias, and work toward restoring institutional trust without denying the reality of elite errors. Their discussion is essential for anyone seeking to understand the complexity of truth, error, and persuasion in the digital age.

For more, including extended discussions on standpoint epistemology and the role of philosophers in public debate, subscribe at yashamounk.substack.com.