To listen to an audio podcast, mouse over the title and click Play. Open iTunes to download and subscribe to podcasts.
Enough shouting. Let’s use our inside voices. Each week, POINT TAKEN debates a topic Americans care about. We deliver smart, interesting guests who can disagree without being disagreeable. Come learn something you didn't know, and maybe laugh a little. Watch it Tuesdays starting April 5th at 11/10C on PBS, and listen to it here the day after.
||CleanLive from Aspen: Can Sex Be Managed By Checklist?||POINT TAKEN is on the road at the Aspen Ideas Festival, where host Carlos Watson leads a discussion about campus sexual assault with guests Leah Fessler, Nancy Gertner, Dianne Harrison, and Sean Decatur. Learn more at pbs.org/pointtaken||7/19/2016||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanShould Organs Be Sold?||The introduction of a market for organs would probably decrease waiting lists and decrease deaths, but a market could also incentivize dangerous behavior from both buyers and sellers and drop in the number of altruistic donations. Hosted by Carlos Watson||6/28/2016||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanIs Technology Making Us Smarter or Dumber?||Is today's unprecedented access to technology improving human intelligence, or fueling a mindless dependency? Hosted by Carlos Watson with guests David Levitin, Emily Dreyfuss, Jeff Glasse, and Kathryn Finney.||6/21/2016||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanShould Paying for Sex Be a Crime?||Poverty and lack of opportunity are two of the main reasons people turn to sex work. Should the law punish them, or people on the other side of the transaction who create the demand? Hosted by Carlos Watson with guests Jenna Torres, Monica Mehta, Daniel R||5/31/2016||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanIs the US Moving Too Quickly or Too Slowly on Gender Rights?||How will our country will perceive gender in the future? Hosted by Carlos Watson with guests Kmele Foster, Alex Myers, and iO Tillet Wright, and Dante Ramos.||5/24/2016||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanIs the US Doing More Harm or Good in the Middle East?||Has our military presence—and the hundred of billions of dollars in aid—improved the situation? Hosted by Carlos Watson with guests Maz Jobrani, Amy Holmes, Celeste Ward Gventer, and Charlie Sennott.||5/17/2016||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanShould the US Pay Reparations to Black Americans?||History can’t be rewritten, but can it be redressed? Hosted by Carlos Watson with guests Kmele Foster, Wendy Murphy, Tom Shattuck, and Valerie Rawlston Wilson.||5/11/2016||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanShould Salaries Be Transparent?||Should salaries be transparent, or is there a better way to achieve equitable pay? Hosted by Carlos Watson with guests Patrice Lee, Ijeoma Oluo, Dan Price and Matt Welch.||5/4/2016||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanIs College Worth the Price Tag?||Host Carlos Watson leads a debate about the value of college in today's job market. Guests: Margaret Hoover, Robert Kelchen, Randall Pinkston, Charles Taibi||4/27/2016||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanShould the US Take in More Refugees or Fewer?||In the second episode of POINT TAKEN, guests debate whether the US should accept more refugees or fewer. Learn more at pbs.org/pointtaken||4/20/2016||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanIs the American Dream Dead or Alive?||In the series premiere of POINT TAKEN, guests debate whether the American Dream is dead or still alive. Learn more at pbs.org/pointtaken||4/7/2016||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanComing Soon: Point Taken||Premieres April 5 at 11/10C on PBS (check local listings). Each week, POINT TAKEN debates a topic Americans care about. We deliver smart, interesting guests who can disagree without being disagreeable. Listen to each debate here the following day.||3/18/2016||Free||View in iTunes|
Meh. Pundits’ take on Oxford-style debating
I was disappointed by this show. The format is basically two sides face off on a particular issue, moderator asks them questions in kind of a half-conversational, half-pointed way, which would be great if it was more of a panel and the panelists were engaging with each other in an intellectually honest way. Instead it’s basically two sides with polar opposite positions on a broadly posed question prepared with sound bytes. The moderator could also give better introductions to the issues, which might allow him to highlight some of the nuances that are getting neglected by panelists in their opening statements.
Besides the format, the main issue with the show is the choice of guests. Filling the panel with activists, pundits, bloggers, etc., you’re getting a very unsophisticated, one-sided view of some of these topics that leads to a lot of code-switching without narrowing to the key points of disagreement. It’s difficult, moreover, to trust the presenters intellectually who have a direct stake in a particular policy outcome and/or are categorically opposed to a certain position for reasons other than those most relevant to listeners. For example, a recent panel on wage transparency would have been much improved if, instead of libertarian pundits and wage equality advocates, the panel included an economist, one or two law professors, a government administrator, and a member of the business community (Dan Price fit this bill). Preferably the guests would have reached their conclusions on the issue of *transparency* following a rigorous intellectual process and full consideration of the pros and cons (of which there are many), and not based on selective and self-serving interpretations of ambiguous data, intuitions about fairness and behavioral economics, and categorical opposition to regulation in any form.
All that said, the show gets three stars because it’s starting conversations about important topics (even if the end result is, arguably, more polarization).
Politics isn't a game show
This show was very disappointing. Instead of any real discussion of the issues, we get a formal debate (which is really just a type of rhetorical exercise in which participants spew talking points) interspersed with vaguely related trivia questions trotted out like they were on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? or something like that. The first episode was about the American dream, but they had the guests talking for nearly six full minutes before the moderator thought to ask them to define "American dream." Then we find out the four guests have three different definitions (what a stroke of luck that two of them basically agreed with each other), which means that everyone had just been talking past one another. And since all of their talking points were prepared before the show, they continued talking past one another because formal debate style doesn't really have a lot of room for retooling in the middle of the exchange. So the whole thing was more or less pointless because the guests weren't given an adequate description of what they would be discussing in advance. It was painful to listen to, but I figured I'd see if the next couple of episodes were an improvement. Spoiler alert: they were not. I can't wait for the day that content creators learn that formal debate and substantive discussion are antithetical to each other. The former is a game where people try to win. The latter is a cooperative endeavor where people try to sort out their disagreements. Using the debate format to try and get a substantive discussion just leads to an uninteresting mess.
Great show-too short
Great and entertaining show. My one issue is that it is too short and too infrequent.