Under the title, “The Dangerous Rise of the Podcast Historians,” the Atlantic article’s subtitle said it all: “If professional scholars don’t engage the public, charlatans and Holocaust deniers certainly will.” Though many could have fit the bill, the “podcast historian” referenced was Darryl Cooper who, in a recent interview, declared that Winston Churchill was the “chief villain” of the Second World War and that Nazi concentration camps were born of a humanitarian impulse.

Oh my.

Yet he had been introduced on said interview as “the most important popular historian working in the United States today.” This despite having published no books, barely any major articles in the popular or academic press, never conducting any original historical research, and not even having a Wikipedia article about him, much less his achievements as a historian.

“What Cooper does have is a Substack with more than 100,000 subscribers as well as a popular podcast,” notes The Atlantic. So what, exactly, is happening in our culture? Here is the conclusion of the Atlantic’s reporting:

Microblogging and online outlets have challenged traditional vectors of authoritative knowledge. A good deal of content that bills itself as scholarly doesn’t pass through editorial or vetting processes but surfaces instead through media, such as podcasting and TikTok reels, that encourage easy narratives.

This speaks to a wider issue, one that was recently the focus of a session in the 2024 Church and Culture Conference on our dependence on Google for not simply information but also “truth.”

It would be hard to overestimate the influence of Google and “googling” in our world. In the latest rankings, the Internet search engine is the most visited website in the world, processing 8.5 billion searches every day. That’s 99,000 searches per second and two trillion searches every year.

Yet there are four primary concerns when using Google for anything, beginning with a herd mentality for decision-making. A site such as TripAdvisor may be helpful, but it should never be forgotten that it is just the organized opinions of people you do not know who may not share any of your tastes or sensibilities. The herd mentality is also present when your search results lead you to a Reddit or Quora thread.

A second danger is the staggering amount of misinformation on the web and the inability of most to discern what is and what is not accurate. And it’s not just getting facts wrong but also how Google searches can lead you to sites that present themselves as factual, objective, and research-based when they most certainly are not.

A third danger is what many have called the “trivialization of knowledge.” While we may talk of the internet providing such things as access to the contents of the great libraries of the world, in truth we are more prone to search for the latest escapades of Justin Bieber or Beyoncé.

But it is the fourth danger that may be most concerning of all, which is the separation of information from wisdom. For centuries, information was collected and then disseminated largely through institutions of higher learning. Google allows people to bypass those institutions and the scholars who inhabit them. Some would say, “All the better,” but what is lost is something profound—namely, the ability to read that information, interpret that information, and then evaluate that information.

Yes, we have almost unlimited access to information, but it is information without teachers, without mentors, and without those who have devoted themselves to the study of that area with peer-reviewed opinions and conclusions in light of other scholars specializing in that area. In other words, we have almost limitless access to information but almost no access to wisdom.

These four concerns about the use of Google for information are concerning enough. But there is more. We don’t look to Google for information but rather for truth. Google doesn’t just present itself as the authority on truth by promoting certain search results as answers, but people are also accepting it as the authority on truth in regard to its search results. If you need a quick example to raise your blood pressure, search “Did Jesus rise from the dead?” in Google and see how famed skeptic Bart Ehrman’s site is presented almost immediately.

People believe that when they do “research” through Google that what they find is objective, informed and balanced. Surveys even show that people consider search engines their most trusted source of information.

When a Google spokesperson once said the company’s goal isn’t to do the thinking for users but instead “to help you find relevant information quickly and easily [and to] encourage users to understand the full context by clicking through to the source,” I couldn’t help but think back on a similar statement by film director Oliver Stone.

In a speech given at American University responding to the distortions and factual errors pointed out in his film JFK, which was presented as a faux documentary on the Kennedy assassination, Stone said that films shouldn’t be the end-all for what is true and that people “have a responsibility to read a book.” He went on to say, “[No one is] going to sit through a three-hour movie and say, ‘That’s that.’”

He’s wrong. That is exactly what people do.

Back in 2003, the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman teasingly wondered aloud if Google was God. After all, he pondered, God is everywhere, and God sees and knows everything. Sounds a bit like Google, doesn’t it?

But Google isn’t God.

The danger of our day is that many don’t seem to know it.

Source