Rise of podcasting and its threat to critical discourse

One clip from a local Malaysian podcast went viral on X recently where a local academic made some audacious claims regarding Malay history.

The host, a veteran local actor, accepts these as truths and does not question them, responding earnestly.

The clip went viral on X as many others felt otherwise as they considered the claim ridiculous, unsubstantiated and a few called into question the quality of work of the academic. But the clip does put forth certain ahistorical arguments that seek to advance certain political agendas.

In the last couple of months, there have been some striking talking points entering the Malaysian public sphere, coming through the medium of podcasts.

Former politicians, academics (myself included), and influencers have taken to using podcasts as an effective way to do public engagement on key issues. The nature of the medium resembles that of a televised or radio talk show, giving it a similar feel and air of legitimacy.

Podcasts are incredibly persuasive as we humans will likely believe someone if they speak with an air of authority, charisma and self-confidence. They are akin to a debate but without the need for fact-checking, nor the need to back anything you say.

In Malaysia, there is a growing rise in the use of podcasts by former politicians, politicians rebuilding their public profile, academics setting themselves as public intellectuals and influencers expanding their audience. The ulterior motives are to advance specific political agendas or to build a market to sell dubious products in the future.

As they are providing the platform, the host is responsible for the credibility of their guest by vetting the guest to ensure that their information is accurate and correct and also to challenge questionable arguments.

It's why press talk shows have more importance than daytime talk shows; the journalist is expected to have done their research and be prepared to ask difficult questions and seek the truth from their guests. The quality of the interview is dependent on both the host and the guest.

Most non-press podcasts lack this rigour but still provide the same level of legitimacy amongst their audience (while niche, can number in the hundreds of thousands or even millions). This isn't unique to Malaysia and it is a global issue as the largely unregulated podcast space often revels in legitimising misinformation and conspiracy theories.

Fact-checks

Thus, for any podcast, the selection of guests is strategic: they are there to advance the agenda of the host. If the goal is to give clout to the guest, the questions will often be soft with no implicit challenge, which translates as an endorsement by the host to the audience.

This effect is amplified with podcasts, being a spoken language media, it is difficult to fact-check or challenge speakers on the spot (especially if the hosts are not prepared to address the arguments raised by guests). Most people would treat podcast sessions like a parliamentary debate where everything said is seen as proven and well-supported facts.

But parliamentary debate works because speakers must provide evidence for any claim they present as part of their main arguments and these must be vetted by moderators beforehand. This is not a common practice in the highly informal podcast ecosystem but the same assumptions of the quality of verbal arguments persist.

Under the free market idea of free speech (with no regulation or limitations), dishonesty and untruths are permitted as they are expected to be challenged by factual truths and evidence. This is a problem with podcasts as they exist in a vacuum that is self-reinforcing and does not require external validation.

While people can challenge the content of podcasts, these exist separate from the recording. As long as problematic podcasts remain online, they are seen as remaining uncontested.

The only metric people must determine if a podcast is “valid” would be view counts or engagement, which again does not remotely correlate to verifying or correcting the information within.

I recognise the irony as someone who regularly makes podcast appearances and has built a following through them. It is undeniably a very useful space for people who wish to share their knowledge or educate the public.

As a means to drum up interest or drive public discourse, it is without parallel in the social media space. They are easy to digest, distribute across social media and appeal to audiences with short and fleeting attention spans.

I am not advocating for the cancellation of political podcasts but rather the audience needs to see them for what they are: conversation starters on important political issues.

For any issue that has piqued your interest in these podcasts, please take it as a call to action to do your research rather than treating it as holistic information on its own.

The media literacy surrounding this incredibly influential medium that lacks substantial checks and balances must be instilled in people to ensure that they are not manipulated and misled by dubious podcasters with hidden agendas. - Mkini

---

BENJAMIN YH LOH is a senior lecturer at the School of Media and Communication at Taylor’s University and a Visiting Fellow at Iseas - Yusof Ishak Institute.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.