Speaking of mainstream media, this is a great debate between Doubly Murray and Malcom Gladwell. Sadly, I lost a lot of respect for Gladwell; dude’s brain is clearly captured by ideology.
Also, it had the largest swing in the crowds view pre and post debate in the shows history.
Thanks for posting. I confess, the only one I had heard of prior to listening to this debate was Matt Taibbi. Apparently, Gladwell had not heard of him though - he kept mis-pronouncing his name even after being corrected repeatedly. Interesting debate tactic, as is taking the tone of the bemused professor, particularly ironic given his lack of postgraduate study. His father was a professor though, so possibly it is a familial affectation. At any rate, it didn't play well with the audience, and seemed to lend itself to the idea that the mainstream press are tone-deaf elitists.
I like the format idea to take a poll before and after the debate to measure effectiveness. So however skewed the audience is one way or another, the marginal change can be measured.
I wouldn't even call that debate. One side repeatedly used ad hominem and straw men arguments and devoted almost no time to trying to actually make a persuasive rebuttal.
The whole debate is actually a good representation of our current times. One side (the affirmative) points out examples of obvious mainstream media bias and how have lost credibility, and the other side resorts to ridicule and personal attack (and references to the state of journalism 20 years ago) to try to discredit their very rudimentary observations.
I mean, think about it. The Russiagate hoax itself should have automatically thrown all of the mainstream news networks and newspapers out of business. Instead, people from the WaPost and NYT won Pullitzer prizes for their "coverage" of it.
