Netanyahu & Nelk: The “Both Sides” Trap
In July, The Nelk Boys, a popular internet group known for prank videos, vlogs, and their Full Send brand hosted alleged war criminal and Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu on their Full Send Podcast. After receiving backlash for their decision, hosts Kyle and Steiny justified their action as an effort to understand both sides of Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. The Nelk Boys received criticism from many in their sphere, including their own fans. Based on the comment section from The Nelk Boys’ interview, watchers believed that they did a horrible job from a journalistic perspective, allowing Netanyahu to spread lies about Hamas blocking and stealing aid to Gaza, despite Israel’s own sources stating otherwise. Netanyahu’s claims came as Israel continues to be the chief impediment preventing aid from reaching Palestinians.
Still, Steiny defends hosting Netanyahu on the podcast, arguing that they would also be having an interview with an opposing, Palestinian perspective. This opposing side ended up being Egyptian comedian Bassem Youssef. While Youssef has been a staunch defender of Palestinian rights in recent years and empathetically attempted to educate Kyle and Steiny on the realities of Israel’s $100+ million dollar propaganda machine, comparing him to Netanyahu is a false equivalence. The other side of the leader of a genocide is certainly not a pro-Palestinian comedian, although it might be a member of Palestinian resistance groups or a Palestinian civilian in Gaza. This misunderstanding demonstrated that the Nelk Boys did not properly represent the other side of this conflict despite their best efforts at objectivity.
Regardless of what you think of the Nelk Boys having Netanyahu on their podcast – who has an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court to his name – they largely did not do any more damage than other mainstream media. Media organizations like the BBC and Fox News are similarly complicit when they uncritically repeat Israeli lies and allow U.S. and Israeli officials to share propaganda with their audiences. Instead, it is more valuable to dissect how, in many cases on the global stage, ignorantly searching for the perspective of both sides prevents us from discovering and accepting what is actual reality. This never-ending search for both sides in an attempt at apparent objectivity is instead unproductive and leads to more misinformation, oftentimes harming victims and playing to the advantage of perpetrators.
Professor of journalism Jonathan Foster once said: “If someone tells you it's raining and another tells you it's dry, it's not your job to quote them both. It's your job to look out the f*****g window and find out which is true.” While he delivered this message in the context of a journalist’s duties, it can be applied to how we consume and analyze media. Steiny described his position to Youssef, stating “when you do your research, everything, it’s just like so opposite. Consuming from both sides, it’s like, which one do I believe?” It can feel overwhelming, even exhausting, to spend hours researching a topic with conflicting claims and viewpoints. But this cannot be a justification to remain ignorant. There are many ways you can verify claims, no matter where they come from. What proof has been provided? Does the evidence provided actually support the claim being made? Who is the source? Does the source have an interest in painting a certain image? Is the source credible? Verifying information takes time and effort, but it is not an impossible task.
Equating two perspectives which hold unequal weight and levels of truth does not help us verify information. Doing so legitimizes falsehoods and allows statements backed with factual evidence to be received with unwarranted skepticism. Using Gaza as an example, thinking additional nuance is required to understand Israel’s actions is at best unproductive, and at worst continuing to manufacture consent for the extermination of Palestinians. In general, putting two viewpoints on equal ground when one comes from a clear victim and the other from the perpetrator only allows the perpetrator to continue spreading falsehoods.
The Debate Problem
In no way is the ‘both sides’ problem specific to the Nelk Boys and their Full Send podcast, rather, their episode with Benjamin Netanyahu is emblematic of a problem with podcasting and other debate programs as a whole. Podcasters and shows like Jubilee often have people with differing perspectives on their shows, but in many cases they allow untrue information to be shared with no pushback, or position knowledgeable experts as having equally valid perspectives as conspiracy theorists.
The Joe Rogan Experience, one of the most popular podcasts in the US, frequently perpetuates this problem. In one episode, Rogan hosts Graham Hancock and Flint Dibble. Hancock is a former journalist and author who promotes pseudoscientific theories about ancient civilizations and lost lands. He has a popular special on Netflix, where he pushes a pseudoarchaeological theory about an ancient civilization. This work, as well as others, has received pushback from qualified and professional archaeologists. Flint Dibble, on the other hand, is an actual archaeologist. He holds a B.A from the University of Pennsylvania, as well as an M.A. in Classical Archaeology and PhD from the University of Cincinnati. In this episode of the Joe Rogan Experience, Dibble and Hancock debate the validity of Hancock’s claims made in his Netflix special Ancient Apocalypse. Hancock backed up his claims with short-sighted assumptions, while the formally educated archaeologist Dibble thoroughly reviewed the existing evidence to refute Hancock’s claims. This unproductive conversation put graphs, analysis, and data on even footing with speculation and vibes. For his part, Rogan did a relatively good job of mediating and being fair to both sides, despite being a personal fan of Graham Hancock. Ultimately, the Joe Rogan Experience exists for entertainment purposes and not education. However, the implication of presenting both of these perspectives in a debate format implies that they are both equally valid and truthful, despite this objectively not being the case.
This platforming of unqualified perspectives seems to follow the Israel-Palestine debate, as seen on another episode of the Lex Fridman Podcast. In the episode, Fridman hosts two supporters of Israel and two supporters of Palestinian liberation. On paper, this all seems fine until we take a look at the qualifications of the people involved. On the pro-Palestinian side, Lex brought on Norman Finkelstein, a political scientist whose primary field of research is the Jewish Holocaust and the Palestine-Israel conflict, and Mouin Rabbani who holds a B.A. in History and International Relations from Tufts University and an M.A. in Contemporary Arab Studies from Georgetown University. On the pro-Israel side Fridman brought on Benny Morris, one of the most prominent Israeli “New Historians” and author of the groundbreaking book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1948-1949. To round out this side of the debate, the final member of the pro-Israel side was Steven Kenneth Bonnell II, otherwise known as Destiny, a Twitch streamer.Throughout this debate Finkelstein, Rabbani, and Morris all back up their claims with historical evidence and a deep understanding of the conflict. Destiny, on the other hand, who hadn’t spoken about or mentioned Israel/Palestine on stream before October of 2023, relied on surface-level knowledge gleaned from skimming articles on the internet. Bonnell displayed such ignorance on the topic that Finkelstein felt compelled to call him a “fantastic moron”.
When entertainment is the primary goal, podcasters can and will sacrifice objectivity and nuance. When podcasters place non-experts on equal ground as experts, they are indirectly telling their audience that both parties have valid arguments and perspectives – but this is not always the case. Audiences can, of course, watch or listen to these podcasts and come to their own conclusions. However, if no background research is done to determine the credibility of guests and/or qualifications are not communicated to audiences, those conclusions can be the result of lies, half-truths, and disinformation.
At the end of the day, podcasters are not historians or scientists or engineers. We should be skeptical of the information they share and take steps to further understand and verify what is presented to us, particularly when it comes to important matters such as the genocide of Palestinians.
Beyond the podcast realm, Jubilee is unmatched when it comes to allowing conspiracy theorists to fight against experts on equal grounds. In one episode of Surrounded, Jubilee pits Dr. Mike – a board certified family physician – against 20 vaccine skeptics. These skeptics repeated common vaccine lies, such as unvaccinated children being healthier than vaccinated children and the myth that vaccines cause autism. Even when Dr. Mike clarifies and corrects misinformation, these skeptics respond with “I’ll have to look into [it].” While Jubilee does offer fact-checking in their videos, we need to ask ourselves: what do videos like this accomplish? When most of these vaccine skeptics can sit with a trained physician for over an hour and still believe conspiracy theories, the productivity of these debates becomes moot. It is fair to not blindly trust everything we are told, even Dr. Mike says he likes to “encourage skepticism” when it comes to his own field. Still, when media like Jubilee platforms debates such as this one, seeds of distrust are sowed against professionals and trusted experts like Dr. Mike. The end result: viewers are almost encouraged to believe the opinions of quacks and snake oil salesmen over scientifically backed research. This same pattern plays out across podcasting sets like The Nelk Boys and their peers.
Understanding the perspective of multiple or both sides is often a prerequisite to getting the full picture of an issue. However, it is paramount to diligently understand whether or not the information coming from those perspectives is factual. Always remember to look out the window.