If you're going to fight the supposed massive tidal wave of "misinformation", you'd think that scientists or advocates for scientists would be champing at the b

If you're going to fight the supposed massive tidal wave of "misinformation", you'd think that scientists or advocates for scientists would be champing at the bit to debate someone like RFK, even if RFK is coming into it with bad faith arguments. Vox misses the point entirely by saying there's a proper place, time, etc. for engagement when it comes to serious issues if the goal is to limit or slow the spread of misinformation. Does the writer think the people watching/listening to Joe Rogan actively seek out these structured engagements that they suggest? The people consuming JRE to watch RFK talk about vaccines obviously don't care about them. They're boring and don't accomplish anything in changing opinions of anybody who's already entrenched in their views and won't even consider watching/attending the engagements anyways. Regardless of the money for charity that's being put up as an incentive, and regardless of who they'd be countering in a debate - I think it's foolish for Hotez to decline or not suggest someone else who might be interested in debating. It's mind-boggling how scientists and journalists put themselves on some sort of intellectual pedestal and believe that debating with "crazy people" won't help the public sphere and it's somehow above them. Of course it would help. If you even convince ONE person that maybe the 5G radio waves aren't messing with the blood-brain barrier allowing whatever they believe to happen, you've succeeded.