The initial brainstorming for this ad came largely as a response to analyzing the Joe Rogan interview with Robert Malone (See Masculinity and Markets: Joe Rogan’s interview with Robert Malone). We wanted to cover at least some of the strategies mentioned in that analysis (and listed below), but needed a specific environment/context in which to justify presenting them. This led to a discussion about a popular term often used by Rogan himself: the “marketplace of ideas.”

The general concept goes back through hundreds of years of political and philosophical thinking, and argues that truth best emerges when all ideas “compete” in a symbolic marketplace consisting of free and transparent public discourse. Central criticisms of this concept have focused on the irrationality of human markets, as well as Truth being viewed as something subjectively decided upon, rather than objectively existing. Rogan specifically has used this concept of a “marketplace of ideas” to defend the more controversial guests or ideas that have been on the show, essentially arguing that every idea is equally valid until the “marketplace” proves it to be otherwise. However, in the traditional practices of our society, virtually every marketplace is regulated to some degree. If you walk into a grocery store, for instance, every item in the store effectively comes with a regulatory guarantee that it meets certain safety standards, as well as likely having to display its nutritional contents and ingredients.

This analogy helped us create our location: a literal marketplace of ideas, similar to that of a grocery store. This allowed us to “compare” ideas in that context and highlight specific disinformation strategies:

1. Truth From Sport
   1. References to a recognizable figure on the label of an idea, specifically referencing a traditionally masculine feature of a “strong chin.”
   2. The can of Friend B’s idea aggressively (but repetitively) shouts to “Buy this idea,” focusing more on a sport-like attempt at forcing submission
2. Non-Peer, Non-Review
   1. The figure with a “face of a hero” is a more compelling authority for Friend B than the Peer-Review of Friend A’s idea

There were other considerations for this ad, especially as it was our first. Knowing that at least one of our intended audiences were people who may be heavily influenced by the disinformation tactics being covered, we wanted to temper a sense of harshness or judgment. The use of humor was an early decision, especially as it can be both engaging and disarming. The decision to have the two main characters be friends served a dual purpose: firstly, it set up a relationship that is traditionally cooperative, not adversarial; secondly, it provided an opportunity to potentially reach a second audience: those who are aware of disinformation tactics, but unsure how to engage with those close to them with whom those tactics work. Near the end of the ad, Friend B expresses feelings of shame for having been drawn to the idea, but is compassionately dissuaded from those feelings by an acknowledgment that the idea was designed to be persuasive. This is a process of listening and validation, both of which are much more conducive to communication than open judgment.