“It always kind of turns into a heated debate at our house whether or not the vaccine is OK.”

Tom Barrett is an Advertising and Studio Art student at UWM who is set to graduate in May. He recalls his experiences with misinformation online, as well as within his own family. He also gives his strategies on how to interact with modern misinformation and conspiracy theories.

Blake Przesmicki: Any given day, how much time do you spend online or on social media? And in regards to that, how much of the things on social media regarding current events or news do you think are trustworthy?

Tom Barrett: I spend about 4 to 5 hours online per day, and I would say a large majority of it is social media, especially Twitter, occasionally Reddit. In terms of my news, I would say probably trust 60% of it, and then the rest I’m not so sure about.

Q: Do you find any common themes of sources that you trust? What is common within those sources vs. sources that you are unsure about? What are common themes with those?

A: I would say typically I follow quite a few reporters, especially from Journal Sentinel and then news outlets like Reuters. I end up actually seeing quite a bit of that on Reddit. But then in terms of sources that I can’t really trust uh, I keep finding myself looking up stuff in Ukraine. So like just looking through the hashtag for Ukraine and yeah, it’s really hard, especially now, like with the war, deciphering whether something is propaganda or a firsthand source.

Q: And when you’re perusing social media, do you run into like, certain conspiracy theories often and if so, what are like the most common ones you’ve seen or like topics that they tend to be related to?

A: So personally, I mean, just thinking about current events, I see a lot of stuff on Ukraine, but in the past definitely during political cycles, there’s a ton of conspiracy theories surrounding the idea of like high profile political figures, responsible for the deaths of others. I think of like, Jeffrey Epstein being alive still or that he was intentionally murdered.

And then I think of like politically charged topics like COVID, where a lot of theories surrounding the effectiveness of vaccines typically end up somewhere in my timeline.

Q: Has there been anyone that you know that has kind of gotten caught up in the misinformation firestorm? What is their story? What topics do they tend to focus on and how has it affected their life?

A: OK, so I immediately think of my family, um, especially the last few years, like Thanksgiving and Christmas, I always kind of sigh because going home is always an interesting experience, especially considering COVID.

So when I think of going home to see family, I especially think of my uncle. He has made the personal choice to not be vaccinated, and then therefore, his kids and his wife are not vaccinated. And it always kind of turns into a heated debate at our house whether or not the vaccine is OK, whether or not its effectiveness makes any sense.

And it’s always kind of this, I guess, matchup against my brothers and I versus that side of the family on basically what we hear. So he listens to a lot of Fox News and tends to repeat a lot of those points. And I think that comes from a very different perspective with me being at college, having to be vaccinated for work, having to deal with the effects of like “I can’t be out in public without being vaccinated because it just makes my life harder.” Even given the situation, I don’t think for a large majority of people they really have the option. So given his situation and his opportunity to have no vaccine and doesn’t really see how it affects others, he’s able to kind of pick and choose the points that he wants to talk about in these larger conspiracies about again, that sort of anecdotal situation of, “oh well, I heard about this person who actually ended up worse because they got the vaccine”, or his belief that it affects the birth of children, which I mean there was that stuff with the Johnson and Johnson, but at the end of the day, like it’s still not affecting a majority of people.

Q: You mentioned how your uncle watched like Fox News and how a lot of his statements match their anchors statements on their shows. How much do you think that media like Fox News has influenced his positions, and how much do you think he just came up with these positions on his own without the assistance of those types of media?

A: So I definitely don’t think he came up with a lot of these theories on his own. I think what I see is an echo chamber of seeing it on the news that he watches every day from people he trusts. And then, I mean, of course add in Facebook, which he’s an avid user of, which kind of just doubles down some of these theories because people that argue with him are just strengthening the idea that there’s this conspiracy to get people tracked with the vaccine or get people influenced by COVID and its regulations.

I would say the opposite side of it too is like, I’m also in an echo chamber of I’m at a pretty liberal college. I’m working in a job that requires me to have this. And a lot of my conversations are around the opposite. But I also see his points and I’m really stretched to believe that they’re true. Soyeah, I think a lot of it does have to do with other people’s theories being appropriated by him.

Q: What do you do for work that you were required to be vaccinated.

A: I work for the university. I work in athletics and I had to get vaccinated to be allowed to do my job. I’m responsible for photography and social media, so being that close to athletes requires the vaccine, and then they were required to do testing every week on top of that.

Q: Working with athletes, have you seen any of their opinions being influenced by other athletes such as Aaron Rodgers on the Pat McAfee show and his COVID takes, or like John Stockton and his statements that COVID vaccines were causing heart attacks on basketball courts or even Kyrie Irving and his stance. Have you seen any of those from high profile athletes trickled down to athletes that you work with?

A: I have not really seen it trickle down publicly. However, it does get back to that sort of taboo of if you’re not vaccinated, chances are you’re probably not going to tell other people. But I know plenty of people that watch these shows, and people are perfectly capable of seeing other others’ opinions. I know definitely like people like Joe Rogan too, definitely stir the pot in terms of a lot of their shows are based on more theoretical and anecdotal situations. So what might happen to one person doesn’t apply to everyone. And I think it has a lot to do with looking at these shows more critically than they come off to be.

When it got pulled earlier this semester, I definitely remember being in a class where everyone in the class was super critical. Which, yeah, his racial remarks are not OK, and I understand why his stuff was pulled. But, I’m still, like, definitely entertained by the guests that he puts on and, like, it’s just such a cultural phenomenon. Um, so that is one of the conversations that, like, regretfully, I did have to sit back on because I was like, I do separate the two things, and like, I do see that issue, but it does come back to like, the entertainment factor. Like, I enjoy listening and I can separate the two, but I don’t know, it’s just very dividing.

Q: That’s I think that’s one of the great things about like, or the unique things about Rogan’s podcast is like just the variety of like one day he’ll have on like Elon Musk and he’s shooting flamethrowers at a desk and smoking pot, and the next day I’ll have on like Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Bernie Sanders, you know, it’s the variety. And I think that’s kind of rare because all the networks nowadays are like CNN. Everyone at CNN kind of has similar opinions. Everyone at Fox News kind of has similar opinions. I think Rogan, for as out there as he might sometimes be on some things. I think it’s unique to his show that it’s a place where a bunch of different people can at least express themselves even if they get backlash from him.

A: Yeah. So he’s very unique in the fact that, like, he will let people talk. I think he’s a great interviewer, but then for more politically divisive stuff, people start to see his opinion directly stated. Like he’ll go out and say that whatever he believes is true with a certain guest. But like the entertainment factor is hearing so and so talk. Like Neil deGrasse Tyson talking about space and informing Joe Rogan on things that he doesn’t know vs. some of his guests are just conversations where they talk about things that they agree upon, typically about COVID more recently. But like there is that entertainment factor to seeing some of these more high status celebrities talk and kind of inform the audience on their profession.

Q: People like Joe Rogan, do you think that their audience 1: understands that a lot of their points/ topics are based on their own anecdotal viewpoints and not rooted pure science? And 2: do you think that they owe it to their listeners or viewers to be more journalistically sound?

A: I think this is a really interesting example of conspiracy theories trickling down to the general public. I think a lot of what he says puts people in buckets of us vs. them. Generally, I think his content just tries to explore possibilities, and I think when you get into that sort of theory-based podcast or discussion a lot of people can mistake that for tried-and-true fact. “You can see it in a book”. Like, no. This is just conversational. He’s bringing you to the endless possibilities of this world. And it does get to those anecdotal stories of Joe Rogan or one of his guests will bring up a situation that happens and then people will treat that as true for everyone else.

So yeah, I think when you put people in an us vs. them perspective you start to bring up these points that you hear in these shows and you use them as like ammunition for well, if Joe Rogan says it, then, you know, I don’t want to be associated with people that believe the other thing. Or if Joe Rogan doesn’t want you to get the vaccine, you better take, I don’t know how to say that word, uh, horse medicine.

Q: So going to the us versus them mentality because I do think that that’s fairly common in a lot of conspiracy theories that are about one specific person or political party. What in your mind would be a better way to run those or execute those types of conversations than an us versus them type of mentality? How do you see us getting beyond that?

A: So in most papers that you have to write, if you think of an argumentative paper they always tell you to write the other perspective, at least for part of your argument. And I think a lot of what podcasts tend to do is to present an argument and kind of leave it at that. So, they’ll get their source and won’t really address the other side or won’t give it any factual backing. So, I think a good solution would be like a podcast based on two people bringing different perspectives. But as I say that I think of like Fox News or most news outlets will intentionally bring people that argue, which really does tend to fortify thinking that other people are crazy.

So like CNN will bring in a Republican or like a very politically opposite person to just argue for the sake of being loud and argument because it’s entertaining for news. But yeah, I don’t know, like a good solution in the long term for some of these podcasts because it’s difficult to be transparent and journalistic in a way that people will understand and still enjoy their show.

Q: You brought up being entertaining for news. Do you think that the way our society works, the need to get clicks, the need to draw attention to your news or headline or story, do you think that that has played a role in crafting these conspiracy theories or just the cultural divide that we have in America today?

A: Yes, I do think that. I do think that a lot of outlets for media, it doesn’t have to be news, are very, very dependent on people being interested in their stories, which does tend to prop up theories in general. It doesn’t have to be a conspiracy theory. I know crime podcasts are really big because they tend to theorize “what could have happened?” “It’s unknown.” That translates really well to political ideology. It translates really well to conspiracy theories in general. It’s a very interesting feedback loop.

Q: Do you believe in the statement that if something is repeated enough times it becomes truth? What are some examples that if you do believe this illustrates that point?

A: Yes, I do think that it causes people to believe things as truth. It becomes kind of a culture culturally ingrained topic. I don’t know if like ghost stories are conspiracies, but I have friends that genuinely believe in ghosts.

I’m very critical of that idea. I think if ghosts exist, they would come out and physically interact with stuff. But you do see, like, especially for the History Channel, aliens, ancient aliens, ghost stories, people that genuinely interact on a professional level with this stuff. And my friends that believe in this are surrounded by family and others that reinforce it and I think it has become a generational thing of, well, they heard it in stories, they talk about it with each other. It just becomes a truth that they’re involved with vs. I’ve never had that ingrained. I don’t really involve myself other than listening to their stories about it. But I’m always very critical of like, that’s just not a thing.

Blake: I think it’s funny that you brought up the History Channel because I think that that is like a representation of like this whole thing. Like, because when I was a kid, I know like the History Channel, like you’d have World War Two in Color or a bunch of like hour long Vietnam War shows or like a show on the pyramids.

And then it got into like shows like American Pickers and like a bunch of stuff like that. And now, if you watch History Channel, there’s all those memes like the History Channel after 10 p.m. or whatever about how the aliens built the pyramids. I think that that is just kind of an example of like how entertainment media has influenced both conversation and content.

Tom: It’s really crazy to me that people build careers off of this. Like, entertainment is a lot of people’s lives and it is just so strange that, you know, you’re right. History Channel after ten is completely against history. It’s more theory. It gets back to the idea of like echo chambers and weird rabbit holes that people kind of can agree with. And there is that logical fallacy of like, you get deep enough into it that you start to believe something unrealistic is true. vs. the truth is true. There is that divide where you get over a certain point that you start to believe that maybe the aliens built the pyramids. You know, it just gets weird.