I'm in a public speaking club and we often separate content (topic, grammar) from the presentation (e.g. good use of gestures)
I've come to regard Gladwell as strong on presentation (writing-wise), weak on content.
I've come to regard Gladwell as strong on presentation (writing-wise), weak on content.
He and Michelle Goldberg were beaten soundly by a guy whose first name Malcom got wrong, and a guy whose last name Malcom got wrong (repeatedly, in both cases).
The "both sides" game from the pro team was excruciating.
As an aside, even when it comes to the anecdotes, Matt Taibbi was incredibly disingenuous about the one thing I fact-checked: his reporting on ivermectin. Sure, he might not have said "everyone should take ivermectin." But in the very first interview I hit with him about it his statements can be summarized as:
"Ivermectin is a miracle drug for treating parasites." -- this sets up a kind of expert opinion fallacy: if Ivermectin is so good at fighting parasites, and viruses are sort of like parasites, right? So Ivermectin might be good for Covid.
Then he says, "Some studies have given weak evidence supporting the use of Ivermectin for Covid." This elides so much about those early studies.
Then he says, "And no one can talk about it [those positive studies]."
It boils down to "tell me you think Ivermectin is good for Covid without saying the words 'Ivermectin is good for Covid'" and it makes me doubt anything Taibbi says. And the fact that he can have said that and then claim that he never supported Ivermectin tells me he will lie to prove a point.