Revisionist History: The Staten Island Problem

This show is so well-researched; the people Ben interviews tell such a vivid and compelling story. Ben is a great host and draws perfectly appropriate parallels to contemporary factionalism. Reviewers complaining about political bias are, quite frankly, hallucinating.

The final episode of The Staten Island Problem really illustrates how the 90s in NYC connects to the last ten years in the U.S. It’s thoughtfully reported and casts a light on how we got here, and maybe, how we stop history from repeating itself again.

The discussion is about how we establish trust- an interesting topic and it does provide ‘food for thought’. But there is a dangerous lack of clarity regarding this man’s prostate cancer. We know he had metastatic prostate cancer so advanced that 15 out of 18 specialists said surgery would either not help or be actually harmful. We don’t know where the cancer had metastasized to; bone, lungs, bladder, etc. By using his own life experience he made the decision to proceed with surgery - all fine there. Lo and behold it was a good decision and he reports ‘miraculous’ results! His PSA score went down significantly over time. So his thoughtful decision-making process was good. About the medical issues: surgery alone does not cure metastatic prostate cancer. The implication here that a surgery (insufficiently explained) did so is frustrating to hear. His PSA score went way down. Did it stay down? Did he have chemotherapy or radiation therapy typical for cases of metastatic cancer? Yes the episode is about decision making but the cancer story cannot be incomplete. It’s too important to listeners.

When I first started listening to Revisionist History, I was completely captivated. The stories were intriguing, and of course, Gladwell’s narration and satirical humor made it an absolute delight to listen to. From Elvis stories to French fry anecdotes, all the episodes were meticulously crafted and expertly performed. Back then, I would have given it a perfect score—a 10 out of 10! Five stars! Whatever the highest rating they had, I would have given it that. However, over the years, what made it so great gradually started to fade away. It was first replaced by cleverly disguised advertisements, like the podcasts with Rick Ruben. Then, it became full-blown 45-minute ads for various services and companies, such as the Tide cold water washing machine podcast or the five-part podcast on WWII, which was essentially an advertisement for a then Gladwell’s upcoming book. This season has become almost entirely an ad for Gladwell’s new book, Tipping Point Revisited. While some of the episodes are still interesting, they are, in fact, just extended advertisements. To add insult to injury, there are also random episodes or “extras” that are just recordings of some random panel discussion held at the downtown YMCA. Frankly, the luster of the old episodes has worn off, just like how the flavor of the old McDonald’s fries was far superior to the new ones. In my humble opinion, Gladwell has lost his shine as a podcaster. Now, “Cautionary Tales” is the best Pushkin podcast, and it’s even starting down the same ad-disguised-as-podcast road that Revisionist History has found itself on.

The slipping in of advertisments directly into the flow of the podcast (almost mid-sentence) is quite unfair. There is no "ad break", it's just one line into the next and BOOM, advertisement! ANd the number of ads per minute for each epsiode is a bit too much much for me. I can't turn on a podcast and just settle in for a good listen.

I like listening to Gladwell’s hypotheses because they’re compelling with a touch of poetry. Unfortunately when you stop and take a closer look at his arguments, you find gaping flaws. I believe he lands on a concept which has some truth to it, and then confirmation bias kicks in and he loses the ability to accurately parse the information in front of him. One very brief example: in the very first episode he uses the election of Australia’s first female prime minister as an example of a group of sexist politicians doing something positive so they can then excuse their future bad behavior. He calls it showing their “bona fides”. This certainly seems like a thing, and I can think of examples from my own experiences where I would think this might be at play, but his example completely misses the mark. He portrays it as though the very people who elected her are then treating her horribly and embracing their misogyny. The story culminates in her famous “misogyny speech” in which she calls out the transgressions of the opposition party and its leader on live TV. But do you see the flaw? The reality is, the opposition party, and certainly its leader, did not vote for her. They did not “show their bona fides” as a way to excuse their future treatment of her. They were the party she beat and they were subsequently angry about it, no bona fides in sight. While she’s making her speech you can hear her own party members echoing her words in support of her message against the opposition party. These flaws continue through the series, with the Toyota story being a particularly egregious example in which he posits that a rash of fatal accidents were not Toyota’s fault, but rather the drivers’ misperceptions on how they were driving. Again, sounds compelling until you ask very basic questions: why did this suddenly start happening? Why only Toyota vehicles? Why only certain models? And why did it suddenly stop? Not sure what Toyota paid him, but it was interesting listening.