The New Advocates - Saturday Political Soap Box 23

Here's an idea.

One of the problems in American culture is that we talk at each other more than we talk to each other.  There's many different ways to solve this, but hear me out on one idea that might be helpful.

I used to like an old PBS TV program called The Advocates.  Each week they would present a topic of concern and debate it in a courtroom style setting.  They had a judge, but I don't remember whether they had verdicts or not.

I think we should revive the germ of that, but have it be a whole evening with different phases to it.  Two to four hours of programming that would most naturally fit CNN (who, God only knows, needs something to help save it), maybe a broadcast network if they would be so bold, or even PBS. Fox, MSNBC or Current could do it, but I think too many people perceive them as biased.  And, yes, I know that there are those who believe all media are biased, but jeez-louise, ya gotta start somewhere!

Let's just take a general topic, say Energy Policy.  The show would start with a half hour to an hour of centrist reporting describing current energy policy, the problems with that, and the different options that we are faced with.  This should be done in an as unbiased way as possible, without resorting to the canard of false equivalencies.  As best as possible, scientists and academics and other factual experts should be sought out before lobbyists, think tanks or shills for political parties.

The second part would be an advocacy trial/debate, presenting two proposals that ARE put together by political advocates.  There should be a real jury composed of average Americans, representing the best cross-section that can be obtained.  There should be a judge with opening statements and witnesses. In the energy policy example, one side might advocate a position that prioritizes alternative energy sources and the other side one heavier on traditional fuels.This should be the longest part, lasting an hour or more.

The third part would be watching the jury confer as to which option they are inclined towards.  After discussion, they would take a brief, non-binding vote.

The final part would be a post-discussion, that might include all parties, and reflect, in some cases, an attempt at reconciliation and blending.

I really like this idea.  But I like a lot of the stuff I come up with - that's how my ego survives.  Feel free to tweak it or tell me why it's rotten.  My forum is open to you!