What A Great Name For A Podcast
When someone sees that the way they see the world is part of the problem, they have two choices: Get angry and retreat or start talking about it. Why Should I Trust You took the better road.
I received a text this summer from an old friend from politics.
“Would you want to be on a podcast to talk about the failings of media?”
“Sure - who is it?”
“It’s a new one that started this spring called Why Should I Trust You. I’ll introduce you to Brinda. You’ll love her.”
“Send her my number.”
When my phone rang with a New York number, I had no idea what to expect. I had made my rounds through the “media” before, and my skepticism always runs hot with television types. But the voice on the other end of the line was different than the other people I had talked to before. She was fun and full of life. She was eager to talk to me about what I thought about things and passed no judgment on the statements I was making.
“Let’s get you on the pod,” Brinda said.
Before I knew it, I was on a Brady Bunch Zoom call with a bunch of doctors and nurses from public health and a few of us who had been labeled as MAHA advocates. In the hours-long discussion that followed, something profound happened. I realized that most of the people on the call didn’t think alike in the slightest. There were people who were frustrated about the outcome of the election. There were people on the call who thought that the public health officials should be in jail for their role in the pandemic. It was as diverse in thought as I could have ever imagined. Brinda started the call with the following admonition:
“This should be like a great dinner party…you know, maybe you disagree, but when the night is over, maybe you might even set up a time to get together for a beer or something.”
I remember being jarred into the realization of what Brinda and her cohorts were doing. They were asking questions, trying to get a real conversation started. Not one that created an adversarial, Crossfire yelling match, but one where people might hear each other. I was hooked.
This country we live in has struggled to do the one thing it needs to do well: have conversations. We have siloed ourselves into buckets where we only talk to the people we agree with. Our online communities are filled with voices we like. We watch and listen to the media that tickles our ears, and we never hear the voices with other ideas. That continued isolation has put our country in a place where we have decided that hating one another is more powerful than working together to solve the big issues of the land. When Brinda and her team went to the Children’s Health Defense conference in November and got the attention of some of the bigger names in the MAHA movement, and then sat down and had a discussion with them, it was profound. People who had been enemies for the last five years suddenly were listening to one another. It was a breakthrough in the thing that needs restoring the most: trust.
I want to highlight this podcast because Brinda Adhikari is doing something that is making America work again. She is asking people to do the hard work that is required in a free country. Disagreeing is easy. Listening is difficult. Hashing out ideas and solutions is nearly impossible, but each week, Brinda, Tom, Maggie, and Dr. Mark round up a bunch of people from the opposite sides of the table and sit them down in a room to hash it out. That is something worth celebrating in our crazy world. I don’t think politics, especially the national, electoral kind, is going to solve much in the future. It is much more theater than anything else. But that doesn’t mean we don’t still have collective problems that our people and country face every day that need solutions. The wonderful part about what Brinda and her team have created is that the discussions and fact-checking that go on during the podcast are leading to real opportunities to fix what ails us as a nation. The more that these doctors and nurses talk to us hippy-dippys of MAHA, the more we find we have in common. It means that there could be real pathways to solutions in the “political arena” if we keep talking about it with each other.
Why Should I Trust You is doing something really wonderful in our country. They should be applauded.
This week, I received a text from Brinda.
“OMG, you guys, Joe Rogan just mentioned us on his podcast!”
Deservedly so.
Why Should I Trust You is showing everyone that activism doesn’t have to be angry. That lesson is one we need to learn as Americans. We don’t have to destroy someone else in order to get our way. In this winner-take-all system we have been forced into, voices that step outside of that and help us see there are better ways to live as Americans need to be elevated. I am so thankful for what I have had the chance to participate in during my time on the podcast. I have met some of the most wonderful people. Do we agree on everything? No, but neither do my wife and I. It’s ok to admit that we can live in a nation with 350 million different ideas, and that even the ones that are not our own have some merit.
Give it a listen. You will appreciate what it is they are trying to do.
Thank you, Aaron--this is so "true".
And not completely on the same point, but very close, see below for a November 2016 Atlantic article from Eric Liu. If you get a chance to read it, I would welcome hearing your reactions and thoughts.
Let's get less wrong, together.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/post-election-reconciliation/506027/?gift=gM-LyHNwuRxQfBTGDj9qOVfe7aM4OwdVfZtjVDIJsQs&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
This made me smile because it captures something deceptively hard: naming isn’t branding fluff, it’s cognitive ergonomics!
From a physician-scientist lens, a great podcast name works the way a good clinical label does; it’s memorable, directionally accurate, and doesn’t over-promise. It gives the listener a prior before the first episode even starts. When names are too clever, they spike curiosity but decay fast; when they’re too literal, they’re searchable but forgettable. The sweet spot you’re circling is the one that signals who this is for, what kind of thinking lives here, and how it will make someone feel, all in a few words.
I also appreciated the meta-point: people often think the name should explain everything, when in reality the name just needs to invite. The show earns its meaning over time through consistency and voice. That’s true in science, too; terms become powerful because they’re attached to good work, not because they were perfect on day one.
Fun, thoughtful post. It’s reassuring to see someone take the “small” decisions seriously, because those are usually the ones that compound.