Beyond the sound bite

An ambitious if somewhat wonky experiment is taking place. Is it possible for two opposing parties to calmly and rationally debate an issue using in-depth, fact based arguments? Can anyone actually be persuaded to change their opinion on an issue after witnessing such a debate? Interesting questions given the pundit-charged, polarized nature of our "national conversation."

Intelligence Squared US is bringing the formal, "Oxford style" debate format to key issues facing the U.S. They've been at it for three years now and are starting to get some visibility. IQ2US tackles issues ranging from the demise of mainstream media to the efficacy of "Buy American" policies. The radio broadcast is available on over 190 NPR stations nationwide and is televised on Bloomberg, reaching over 200 million homes. I encourage you to listen to one of these debates. They are informative, surprisingly fun and charged with same kind of drama that kept millions tuned into Perry Mason.

A citizen making a voting decision is analogous to a consumer making purchase decision. Based on available information, both make a choice. Poor decisions generally happen when the information is incomplete or inaccurate. It's an understatement to say the quality of information available to the average citizen or consumer today is less than ideal.

Is there an appetite for more rigorous and in-depth public debate? Viewership of the 2008 presidential debates indicates there is. Are consumers open to more and better fact based information in making purchasing decisions? It appears so when one looks at the popularity of sites like TripAdvisor.com and Yelp.com (where consumers have essentially filled this need on their own).

Bottom line: Politicians and marketers have an opportuity to improve their standing (and outcomes) by taping into this appetite for deeper dialog and better information. Could the pendulum be swinging from the era of superficiality to one of substance?