04-02-2013, 04:49 PM
I asked this question over at the EF. It has started a slide a little as people argue over the evidence.
Here's the rub as I see it. Use a well known person from the research community and they will invariably be wedded to their own theory, which doesn't even get universal agreement on this side of the debate. Also, a good scholar/researcher is not necessarily effective in debate or on screen against the likes Fox News or VB.
A well known character with integrity from some other field (a recognizable brand, IOW) could be coached with the facts but would hold no weight against someone like Posner who has done their research.
Think of it like a sales pitch. In companies I've worked for we had the slick salesman who could talk the talk but not really capable of switching the product on, followed by the tech guy who knows the product inside out and can respond to questions of detail. I think it needs a well known personality with gravitas and integrity (I know, not too many of those about today) to sell the concept, and a person with a wide, deep knowledge of facts and sources. That guy, to me anyway, is Jim DiEugenio. A broader picture as to why would be Douglass but I have no idea what he's like on TV.
Presentation needs to be as watertight in regard to facts as possible. Use "new" (i.e. within last 20 years) stuff like the AARB but choose wisely and have corroboration to hand. Two brains etc?
If Hanks hadn't crossed to the "dark side" I'd have suggested him as your Jimmy Stewart character. Who is there in US culture these days with a high trust rating?
Here's the rub as I see it. Use a well known person from the research community and they will invariably be wedded to their own theory, which doesn't even get universal agreement on this side of the debate. Also, a good scholar/researcher is not necessarily effective in debate or on screen against the likes Fox News or VB.
A well known character with integrity from some other field (a recognizable brand, IOW) could be coached with the facts but would hold no weight against someone like Posner who has done their research.
Think of it like a sales pitch. In companies I've worked for we had the slick salesman who could talk the talk but not really capable of switching the product on, followed by the tech guy who knows the product inside out and can respond to questions of detail. I think it needs a well known personality with gravitas and integrity (I know, not too many of those about today) to sell the concept, and a person with a wide, deep knowledge of facts and sources. That guy, to me anyway, is Jim DiEugenio. A broader picture as to why would be Douglass but I have no idea what he's like on TV.
Presentation needs to be as watertight in regard to facts as possible. Use "new" (i.e. within last 20 years) stuff like the AARB but choose wisely and have corroboration to hand. Two brains etc?
If Hanks hadn't crossed to the "dark side" I'd have suggested him as your Jimmy Stewart character. Who is there in US culture these days with a high trust rating?