{"version":"1.0","type":"rich","provider_name":"Acast","provider_url":"https://acast.com","height":250,"width":700,"html":"<iframe src=\"https://embed.acast.com/$/69a1aa8467ae12eb0a8b58a7/69a1aa91aa1e5696bd241c08?\" frameBorder=\"0\" width=\"700\" height=\"250\"></iframe>","title":"Chamber of Facts","thumbnail_width":200,"thumbnail_height":200,"thumbnail_url":"https://open-images.acast.com/shows/69a1aa8467ae12eb0a8b58a7/77ea522e04d3c494d23ca47397440b06.jpeg?height=200","description":"<p>Do people of opposing political parties believe in different facts? The mantra at the moment is that they do, because of media echo chambers, motivated reasoning, and ideological blindspots. But a more careful look reveals a different answer, with perhaps even more startling consequences. This week we follow two conservative Republicans who consumed a liberal newsfeed for two weeks, and we look at the empirical and philosophical problem of the way partisanship affects belief in facts. Guest voices include Janalee Tobias, Trent Loos, philosophers Daniel Wodak and Eric Schwitzgebel, and political scientist John G. Bullock. The episode is brought to you by the Great Courses Plus. Sign up for one month free at <a href=\"www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/hiphi\">www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/hiphi</a>.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>Join Slate Plus to unlock full, ad-free access to Hi-Phi Nation and the rest of your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe directly from the Hi-Phi Nation show page on <a href=\"https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hi-phi-nation/id1190204515\">Apple Podcasts</a> or <a href=\"https://open.spotify.com/show/0izJYLb7Q9gktrQfXLSgLs\">Spotify</a>. Or, visit <a href=\"https://slate.com/podcast-plus?utm_medium=link&amp;utm_campaign=plus_pod&amp;utm_content=Hi_Phi_Nation&amp;utm_source=episode_summary\">slate.com/hiphiplus</a> to get access wherever you listen.</p><p> </p>","author_name":"Slate Podcasts"}