Basically, he’s not letting politicians get away with all their usual BS. However, one could go much further than this—be more systematic, even tougher, etc. Moderating debates using the same principle is a logical next step (perhaps it has been done).
My understanding is that HARDtalk is quite succesful.
I think the idea of this post is very good (indeed I have similar ideas myself which I’ll probably write something on later) and have a hard time understanding why it’s being voted down.
Thanks for the recommendation. I’ve watched a couple Hardtalk interviews and they were great. Hardtalk definitely suffers the limitations of oral discussion that people talk about elsewhere in this thread, but, for what it is, it’s great.
The first questions to ask are “why isn’t this being done already?” and “has anyone tried doing this already?” and “if yes, what happened?”
I think BBC’s “Hardtalk” is doing something like this, thought it is just doing interviews (I think).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HARDtalk
Basically, he’s not letting politicians get away with all their usual BS. However, one could go much further than this—be more systematic, even tougher, etc. Moderating debates using the same principle is a logical next step (perhaps it has been done).
My understanding is that HARDtalk is quite succesful.
I think the idea of this post is very good (indeed I have similar ideas myself which I’ll probably write something on later) and have a hard time understanding why it’s being voted down.
Thanks for the recommendation. I’ve watched a couple Hardtalk interviews and they were great. Hardtalk definitely suffers the limitations of oral discussion that people talk about elsewhere in this thread, but, for what it is, it’s great.