[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning again, everyone. We'll be joined shortly by Natalie Wynn, known as ContraPoints on YouTube, where she has nearly two million subscribers. On her channel, you'll find movie-length video essays with full sets and ornate costuming on the pressing philosophical questions of our time. Natalie's latest video titled CONSPIRACY doesn't seek to debunk the false theories that millions have adopted exactly.

Instead, she questions the genesis of conspiracism, how conspiracists think, why so many have fallen prey to that rabbit hole. This is not just abstract but very current, as she explores what impact a number of conspiracy theories might be having on our politics and our fragile democracy right now. Let's take a listen by way of introduction to just 35 seconds from the start of the video.

Natalie Wynn: The Bilderberg Group, Atlantis, serpent DNA. Does the Vatican control the Freemasons, or do the Freemasons control the Vatican?

[background noise]

Natalie Wynn: These people are sick. It's a big club and you ain't in it. Symbolism will be their downfall.

[music]

Brian Lehrer: With me now is Natalie Wynn, also known as ContraPoints. Welcome back to WNYC. Thanks so much for joining us today.

Natalie Wynn: Thank you for having me. Happy to be here.

Brian Lehrer: Should I call you Natalie or Contra or Ms. Points?

Natalie Wynn: You just call me Natalie. Yes, you can call me Natalie. I'll take Ms. Points. That's fine.

[laughter]

Brian Lehrer: Before we delve into the subject of your video, I wonder if you would introduce yourself and your work to listeners who may be meeting you here for the first time. You're often described as someone who wanted to break the right-wing dominance of the YouTube video sphere. How much would you describe the YouTube world that way or your interest in using the medium as a way to break that dominance?

Natalie Wynn: Well, I think YouTube is not as uniformly right-wing as it is when I started doing this back in 2016, although I would still say that it's more right-wing than not if you look at political commentary on that site. I started my channel in 2016. Before that, I was getting a philosophy PhD, and then dropped out of that and decided to become a YouTuber. That's how I started. I would say I'm less interested in debunking right-wing arguments necessarily than I was at the beginning, but I'm still very much concerned with right-wing extremism and conspiracy theories are a major part of that.

Brian Lehrer: We'll get into that, obviously, since that's your new movie-length video. That's what it's about. Conspiracy theories. Tell our audience about your audience. Obviously, there's some crossover, but to the extent that people are meeting you here for the first time, who's in your audience? Do you think you have many crossover viewers like gamer world or manosphere people watching you there in addition to maybe watching their right-wing stars or not so much?

Natalie Wynn: There's a little bit of crossover. Not as much as there used to be. I would say that when I first started, there was a lot of crossover. In fact, I think the first three videos I made were mostly getting downvoted because I was playing to a mostly right-wing audience. That's no longer the case. The channel now has two million viewers. I think the audience is pretty diverse in terms of viewpoint. Also, by other metrics, it's about an even split in terms of gender. 60% of the viewers are not even American. It's a big diverse audience at this point.

Brian Lehrer: Why do you work in such a long form in an era of such short attention span? I gather you only make one video a year, more or less. The new one on conspiracy theories is over two hours. That's not atypical for you, so how did you choose that form to work in?

Natalie Wynn: Well, I feel less like I chose it then. It creeped up on me. When I started almost 10 years ago, it was 10-minute videos, 15-minute videos for the most part. I would do one at least once a month. Then I guess it's called scope creep. I found that I had more to say about certain topics. I wanted to get deeper, go into more depth. That took more time. I felt like the production had to be bigger to justify the amount of time it was taking.

Then next thing you know, you're uploading two-hour YouTube videos that have six different sets and seven different costumes. Yes, it just happened to me, but I do think that I do prefer doing the long content. I've never really figured out how to do short-form video on TikTok. A lot of topics that I discuss are not really well-served by being reduced to 30 seconds. I think that some things do take two hours to really explore.

Brian Lehrer: Maybe that's why you tell me you've made your videos as ornate as they are. You're not just talking into a mic in your bedroom like a lot of YouTubers. You've got fully decorated sets, wardrobe changes, props. A far cry from the usual simple talking heads videos, which I think was your approach before you grew out of it. What impact are you trying to create with the visuals of your videos?

Natalie Wynn: Well, a lot of it is I'm just trying to keep the audience entertained and keep myself entertained, honestly. I don't know. I'm easily bored, I guess, like a lot of people online. I guess I feel like I will lose attention if there isn't something to look at, and if there isn't something to-- I also feel, I guess, that the visual component of the medium has to justify itself.

If it's going to be a video, I need to be putting something on screen that's not just a person talking. I guess some of that is just me thinking of ways that I can make the content more interesting, especially with a miserable subject matter a lot of the time like, "How can this be less miserable?" Well, for me, part of making it less miserable is making it visually ornate, like you said.

Brian Lehrer: Just one more question before we actually dive into the content of your new one called CONSPIRACY, where does the name ContraPoints come from?

Natalie Wynn: Well, I think I actually named the YouTube channel long before I had any intention of doing this as a job. It's a reference to music, so counterpoint in musical theory is like in baroque music, especially where you have multiple voices at once. It ended up working for the channel because the word "contra" makes you think of argument or disputation. Sometimes I'll do videos where I'm playing multiple characters having an argument, so it happens to fit, but I really just got lucky there.

Brian Lehrer: You were actually trained. Were you a music major in college?

Natalie Wynn: I was, yes, before philosophy-- When I got out of high school, I was two years at Berklee College of Music as a piano student.

Brian Lehrer: Like me, I also have an undergrad degree in music before I went to grad school in journalism and public health.

Natalie Wynn: I love that.

Brian Lehrer: Segueing into your latest video, it's titled CONSPIRACY. You typically devote yourself to about one video a year like I said. Why did conspiracies rise to the top as opposed to other pressing philosophical or other questions of today for your latest one?

Natalie Wynn: Well, I'd wanted to do a video about conspiracy theories for years. It's always been a part of my experience of politics online. It's just something that's always been there. Why I decided to do it this year, I think, was because I knew I was going to be making this video during the 2024 election season, so I was going to be thinking about politics all the time.

I wanted to do something that was about an aspect of American politics, but that was not going to be so specific that the video would be outdated by the time I finished it. I chose conspiracy theories because it had been so relevant to that election and the previous two elections. I knew that I would stay motivated on this topic because there would be a constant stream of relevant information.

Brian Lehrer: As many philosophical inquiries begin with, let's start with some definitions. You differentiate between conspiracies and conspiracy theories. What sets them apart?

Natalie Wynn: Well, conspiracy is just anytime more than one person, multiple people plot to do something criminal. Usually, when we talk about a conspiracy in this context, we're talking about something the government did. Obviously, there's plenty of real conspiracy theories, largely the stories of these things, right? Popular ones that people discuss in the US would be something like MKUltra, where the CIA was experimenting on American citizens, Canadian citizens with LSD, and with other ethically dubious methods, or something like Watergate, where you have the Nixon administration conspiring to tap the Democrats.

A conspiracy theory, it's a speculative hypothesis, I guess we could call it, to be generous, about some political event or about who controls the world in general. I think by definition, a conspiracy theory is something that's not substantiated. The conspiracy theorists love to say that, "Well, if conspiracy theories are bogus, then why do conspiracy theories keep coming true?" It's like, "Well, does that happen?" I don't know that it does. I think that investigators, journalists often uncover actual conspiracies that have occurred, but conspiracy theory is something different. I compare it to cryptozoology, the people who are-- Well, they think of themselves as studying Bigfoot or the Mothman or these mythological, folkloric creatures.

Brian Lehrer: They don't exist.

Natalie Wynn: Although they never actually find Bigfoot, right? If they found Bigfoot, then this would no longer be cryptozoology. It would be zoology. Likewise, I think if a conspiracy theory is supported by substantive evidence, then it's not a conspiracy theory. It's news or it's history. The world of conspiracy theory is, by definition, the world of speculation.

Brian Lehrer: Right, or conspiracy theories are things-- Well, I guess you're making a little bit of distinction. I was going to say, when we use the term "conspiracy theories," we're talking about things that are false. You're stopping a little short of that and saying the things of speculation without any evidence.

Natalie Wynn: Yes, because I guess you could say that it's false. A lot of conspiracy theories, I feel pretty confident saying this is simply not true. Sure, for the sake of open-mindedness, I'll say not supported by evidence.

Brian Lehrer: When did we as a collective, as a nation, become so entranced by conspiracy theories? How does one initially fall down the rabbit hole, or I think you put it, "Take the red pill"? Is this a modern problem of the internet era, or have we been conspiratorial all along as Americans?

Natalie Wynn: Well, a lot of people think that it's a modern problem. It certainly has acquired a new level of accelerating prominence in the last decade especially. No, it's not new. One of the most useful philosophical sources for me on this video was the essay by Richard Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics, which was published in the '60s. It was about the John Birch style anti-communist conspiracy theories.

He traced it back to the founding of the country when George Washington-- There's actually a correspondence where George Washington received the book, Proofs of a Conspiracy by John Robison, which is a book about how the Illuminati are taking over the Freemasons, and they're plotting to destroy all government and all religion. You can trace this back to the 18th century in the United States even. There's other versions of conspiracy theories, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Anti-Semitism is largely a conspiracy.

That goes back at least 1,000 years. No, in one sense, it's not new at all. It's not new in America. It's not new online. I remember growing up. I was about 12 or 13 when 9/11 happened. 9/11 conspiracy theories were rampant online. It's always been there, but the difference, I think, in the Trump era is that it's acquired a level of legitimacy that it hasn't had before in this country in the sense that-- Well, there's a long list of conspiracy theories that he's endorsed.

Maybe the most consequential was his conspiracy theory that Biden had stolen the 2020 election, which functioned to justify this counter-conspiracy, "Stop the steal," culminating in the January 6th insurrection. I would say that is a pretty big impact at this point that conspiracy theories are having in politics. Nothing comes to mind that that's this politically prominent in American politics that is basically generated purely from conspiracy theories.

Brian Lehrer: By the way, just as a footnote, when you mentioned Bigfoot before.

Natalie Wynn: Yes.

Brian Lehrer: I said, "Oh, who doesn't exist." Listener quickly texted, "Brian, you cannot definitely say that Bigfoot does not exist." Then sure enough, I did a little web search as you were giving your last answer just to see, what does the internet say about Bigfoot? Conspiracy theory or--

Natalie Wynn: There's a lot, I imagine.

Brian Lehrer: Sure enough, four news stories from the last day came up right away. Listen to these headlines from The Irish Sun. "Credible," that word is in quotes, but it's there. "'Credible' new Bigfoot sighting as 6-foot-tall beast targets dad and son." All right, that's The Irish Sun. Denver Gazette, "Bigfoot sighting: Coloradan spots 8-foot-tall creature wandering road." The Irish one had it 6 feet. The Denver one had it 8 feet.

NewsRadio 560 KPQ. That's in Washington State, "Where to look for Bigfoot in Washington State." That broke yesterday. The Erie Times-News, I guess that's in Pennsylvania, six hours ago. "Is Bigfoot real? This Pennsylvania festival celebrates all things Bigfoot." That one sounds like it's just fun. What do you make of the fact that you could find all these news stories like they don't have anything real and more important to cover?

Natalie Wynn: Well, I think people just love hearing about this stuff. I remember, it seems like every few years, there's some big headlines about the government revealed something about UFOs, and then often, it falls short of real evidence of extraterrestrial aircraft or whatever. There's seemingly a universal and inexhaustible interest in these topics, I think, because of the element of mystery, right?

I think if they found Bigfoot, we would all get bored really fast because, okay, they found a large primate, right? As long as he's always in a blurry photograph or there's reports that someone saw something, maybe it was Bigfoot, that's exciting because it means it's, again, a mystery thriller, right? I think the same is true of UFOs, same is true of conspiracy research.

Brian Lehrer: These actual "news organizations" are reporting on Bigfoot sightings. Wikipedia says mythical creature. [chuckles]

Natalie Wynn: Yes. Again, I'm not saying I'm sure there's no Bigfoot. Maybe Bigfoot is real. I'm just saying it remains speculative.

Brian Lehrer: All right, listeners, we're going to open up the phones for anybody who wants to talk to Natalie Wynn, also known on YouTube as ContraPoints. Call or text us at 212-433-WNYC, 433-9692. There are a couple of ways you can go with this. First, any ContraPoints fans can just call up and be fanboys or fangirls. We got a text right away after you started here. He said, "Oh, big fan of Both WNYC and ContraPoints. So cool to hear her on the show."

Anybody else like that? Anything you always wanted to ask Natalie Wynn or ContraPoints but never had them over to dinner? 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, or as we dig further into the content of her new two-hour-plus video called CONSPIRACY, how have conspiracy theories come up in your life? Do you have a friend or family member who's "taken the red pill"? What do they believe and how has it impacted your relationship?

Are there any conspiracies that surprise you or any that you believe in? We'll also take any questions about the topic for Natalie Wynn, ContraPoints. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. Let's take the break that we need to take here and then we'll continue. Oh, our lines are flooding. Maybe there's a lot of Brian Lehrer Show-ContraPoints overlap. We will find out, and we'll talk more about conspiracists and conspiracism and conspiracy theories. Stay with us.

[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC with Natalie Wynn, also known as ContraPoints in her YouTube video essays. Her latest one called CONSPIRACY. All right, Natalie, here's a text. "Democrats should embrace conspiracy theories. They're fun and harmless." Then they suggest one, "Vance killed the Pope." We remember JD Vance visited the Pope the day before he died. Then this listener adds, "The other side does it to us all the time." Do you have any reaction to that?

Natalie Wynn: Well, it would probably work. I think that, again, because being tied to truth is kind of difficult, because truth is, or evidence, anyway, it takes work, right? It takes work to prove things. It also really limits what you can say if you're only willing to say things that are true. Yes, it would be very liberating in a way, I suppose, for Democrats to give up on that whole business. I think that's also a dangerous move because once you give up on evidence, well, you've basically cut the brakes off of your car.

You don't know where you're going to end up once you start playing this game. I think that would be dangerous. It might be effective in the short term, but I feel like in the long term, we'd be better served by attempting to teach reasoning and scientific thinking. Is it too late for that? Are we doomed? Maybe. In which case, okay, sure, JD Vance killed the Pope, but I do think that that probably would not be without its downsides.

Brian Lehrer: What impact do you think conspiracy theories from the right are actually having on our politics right now?

Natalie Wynn: Well, I think it's degrading people's ability to think rationally. In other words, a lot of times, the logic of conspiracy theories, it's giving yourself permission to believe whatever you want to believe, because, again, you don't need to rely on experts. For example, you don't need to rely on scientists or journalists. You can say that, in fact, anything they say, you can just say, "Well, that's what they want you to think." If people who you agree with are doing something politically embarrassing, you can say, "Well, that's controlled opposition."

Conspiracy explanations can hand-wave away almost anything. Anytime anything goes wrong, well, your opponents did that, right? If there's a hurricane, well, that's the CIA. They designed that hurricane to suppress my voters, right? I think that the normalization of this type of thinking basically lets people choose their own adventure when it comes to what they believe is true. Wanting to believe something and believing something, there's no steps between those two things because you can just invent conspiracist rationalizations for whatever is politically convenient.

Brian Lehrer: Anjanette in Hoboken, you're on WNYC with Natalie Wynn of ContraPoints. Hi, Anjanette.

Anjanette: Hi. Wow, sorry. I'm a big fan. I watched a video essay of yours for the first time when I first heard of video essays five years ago. I've been following you ever since. My question is, I'm trying to embark on this academically honest truth-telling that I feel like you do when it comes to content creation by releasing something in a couple of days myself. What would you give me as advice when it comes to trying to be a creator that speaks like you do a little bit?

Natalie Wynn: Well, I would say my advice to people who want to be creators is, the most important thing is that you have something to say. I recommend that people follow their interests. Don't chase the algorithm. Don't chase likes. People can tell. In other words, talk about what you're passionate about. There's something infectious about someone who obviously cares of what they're talking about. I notice this all the time with YouTubers.

A very popular YouTube video essayist at the moment is Jenny Nicholson. She makes videos about recent theme parks. I don't go to theme parks very much. I'm not very interested in theme parks, but I will happily watch Jenny talk about theme parks for three hours. Why? Because she cares about theme parks and her enthusiasm is infectious. I would say that when you're deciding what to talk about, instead of looking at someone's, "What is the popular thing of the moment," talk about the thing you care about, and people will notice that you care.

Brian Lehrer: Anjanette, hopefully, that's useful advice. Thank you very much. Let us know when you have a video out there. Betty in Valley Cottage, New York, you're on WNYC. Hi, Betty.

Betty: Hi, how are you doing? I'm calling because my brother is a major conspiracy theorist. He believes in flat Earth and Bigfoot and that Trump was chosen by God. I understand why he does because he's disabled. He's never been on a team. He doesn't have a lot of male friends, but I think it's because he goes deep into the Internet. I feel sorry for him and embarrassed, but I never try to embarrass him. I don't know what to do. [chuckles] What do I do?

Brian Lehrer: Any advice? Do you get into that in the video?

Natalie Wynn: Thank you. I don't get into it too much. I will say a book that you might find interesting is The Quiet Damage. It's the profile of six or seven people who got very into QAnon during the pandemic and the kind of effect it had on their lives. Some of them got out of it. Some of them didn't. I think that it's a tough situation to be in. A lot of people are in the same situation.

I agree that social isolation and a kind of feeling of exclusion or a feeling of-- Often, that is a trigger for people to become conspiracy theorists. It sounds like you're taking the right approach. Are you attempting to argue about whether these theories are true? That tends not to go anywhere, right? Often, the best thing to help people get out of it is you have to encourage people to fill their lives with something else.

I think sometimes nostalgia for their life before they became obsessed with conspiracy theories can be really helpful. Those are the things to try, but it seems like there's no guaranteed methods. Something else you might find helpful is there's a subreddit online called QAnon Casualties, which a lot of people who have family members or loved ones who are conspiracy theorists will post there. There's at least a solidarity.

Brian Lehrer: Is it related to cults? There was a time a few decades ago when maybe we would have been having a similar conversation about cults and families who needed to try to rescue their loved ones from the belief system that they had fallen for in a cult.

Natalie Wynn: I think there's definitely overlap. I think that for a lot of people, online conspiracy theories do function as a kind of cult for the social media age. A lot of the same stuff applies to, "My loved one is in a cult. How do I deprogram them?" It's a similar situation to, "My loved one is obsessed with conspiracy theories," where, again, arguing with them about it probably won't work. Again, the question is, what void in their life is this filling, and how can you help them fill it with something else? That's usually going to be the better approach, although not to make it easier said than done, of course.

Brian Lehrer: Bob in Manhattan, you're on WNYC with Natalie Wynn from ContraPoints. Hi, Bob.

Bob: Excuse me. Good morning. This is a fascinating subject. I'm thinking that conspiracy theories have an origin in a valuable human trait. It's a double-edged sword. We have the ability to see connections between things that don't necessarily present themselves. Human beings looked at a sharp stone and a piece of sinew and a stick. They put them together and created a weapon. A useful tool, let's say.

The other thing that I know about it is that once people hatch these things, they become attached to them. They feel like they developed them themselves and it's very personal. We need to define the world and to get control of the world around us. By finding these connections, and you can connect some very odd things and make it your own, I think, is the genesis of a lot, at least the origin, of these conspiracy theories.

Brian Lehrer: Natalie?

Natalie Wynn: Yes, I totally agree with both those points. In a lot of ways, it is pattern recognition, right? That's at the basis of conspiracy thinking. A lot of conspiracists will outright say, "I don't believe in coincidence." Okay. Well, if you don't believe in coincidence, then any two things that seem connected are connected. Then it's just up to you to explain how they're connected.

There's a statue at the Vatican that you think looks like a reptile. Well, that can't be a coincidence. It must mean the Vatican probably is controlled by reptilians. To your second point, yes, I think that you're absolutely onto something in terms of people do feel very personally attached to conspiracy theories. A lot of it does have to do with the way that people-- I wouldn't say reason their way into them, but they connect the dots, right?

That's, I think, one reason why conspiracy propaganda, stuff like QAnon recruitment videos, one reason that's so effective is that when you feel like you connected the dots yourself, you feel that this is your idea. You become possessive of that idea. It becomes part of your identity. When you argue with someone you know, they feel like you're attacking them because they have internalized this so deeply as part of their worldview. Yes, it makes it pretty difficult to get people to change that.

Brian Lehrer: Bob, thank you for your call. Let me read through a couple of texts to you. One person, another fan, writes, "Love ContraPoints. I've converted so many friends into fans. I always describe her as the greatest philosopher as our time," writes Sophie in Manhattan. Do you see yourself as a philosopher? I know you studied philosophy. Is that how you would label yourself, a philosopher?

Natalie Wynn: Well, it's a very kind comment. I would not call myself a philosopher. It's one of those things like an artist. If other people want to call me that, well, that's kind. That's generous of them. I think it's better for my ego to not get any big ideas about who or what I am. I think it's better to have an image of yourself as just someone who's trying to figure out what's wrong with the world.

Brian Lehrer: How about YouTube influencer? Will you take that label?

Natalie Wynn: I'll take it. Influencer almost feels like a pejorative. [chuckles]

Brian Lehrer: Right. It's getting there, right?

Natalie Wynn: Yes. The headlines about what influencers are doing are not usually hugely positive, but I suppose that's just an objective description. I do make YouTube videos, and that some people, I suppose, are influenced.

Brian Lehrer: Here are two from different people that are related in my mind. One writes regarding conspiracy theories, "Isn't that what the Greeks did with their myths to explain unfortunate events with stories?" To me, this other one puts a fine point on that. They just write, "Is God a conspiracy theory?"

Natalie Wynn: I definitely think there is a strong overlap between religious thinking and conspiracy thinking in terms of viewing the world through this very humanistic lens, right? The personification of impersonal forces, for example, in Greek paganism, to have a personification of war or personification of the ocean, of storms, of the sky, of the Earth, right? I think that a lot of times, conspiracy thinking takes something like economic forces and personifies it as, "There must be someone pulling a puppet master, pulling the strings."

They don't believe in accidents. They don't believe in coincidences. Adam Smith used the metaphor of an invisible hand to describe the unintended effects of the market. I think for a lot of conspiracy theorists, the invisible hand is literal. There's a real person or persons pulling the strings of the economy. It's all deliberate. It's all someone's plan. Yes, I do think that is a similar kind of thinking to what goes on when people see events in the world as an expression of God's will.

I wouldn't go so far as to say God is a conspiracy theory, but I do think that it's a similar style of thinking, a humanistic thinking applied to-- I suppose I would see them scientifically as inhuman forces, or the economy at least as beyond any specific plan. There's no one who's completely in control of the economies. I think humans, we see ourselves reflected in the world. We talk about the economy like it has plans and intentions. For some people, that's literally the case.

Brian Lehrer: This is also why some people might consider you a philosopher, or at least a philosophy professor. You discuss in your video, intentionalism, that some intentionalism is part of human nature, meaning we think that there's some kind of hidden plan, which could include belief in God. Then you describe dualism as a view of the world without moral ambiguity, right? This is all right or all wrong, or this side or that side.

We're going to run out of time, so I'll sneak in one more question about the video because part of it is dedicated to rituals and how conspiracists seek to uncover them. What makes rituals such a prominent fixture in the conspiracist's imagination, and the connection rituals have relevant to the moment, to power, and democracy? We have 45 seconds for this in-depth answer.

Natalie Wynn: Okay, I'll do my best. Well, I think ritual is just the natural expression of a lot of things that conspiracists are already fixated on. The idea of intentionalism, everything that happens is because someone planned it. Well, ritual is a very intentional action. It's an expression of that. Dualism, the idea of absolute good versus absolute evil. Rituals are connected in popular imagination with Satanism or with evil occult practices.

The idea that the elites are doing rituals is a confirmation of the idea that the elites are fundamentally evil. Rituals are also a kind of-- it's the type of connecting the dots, pseudo-evidence that conspiracists like, right? It's a symbolic piece of evidence that shows proof of collusion, right? If you pick up on signs of rituals, then you've picked up on dots that you can connect into a conspiracy.

Brian Lehrer: You did it. You stuck the landing as the music plays you out.

Natalie Wynn: Thank you.

Brian Lehrer: Natalie Wynn, also known as ContraPoints on YouTube, her latest movie-length video, CONSPIRACY. Thank you so much for coming on and talking about so many things with us. We really appreciate it.

Natalie Wynn: Thanks so much for having me. Thanks to everyone who asked questions.

 

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.