The art of persuasion has been thoroughly trounced by polemic in public debate. Online, in comments sections, in staccato bursts of hate and attack, in the citing of feelings over facts, we see people shoving pillows over divergent views and trying to stop them being aired at all. When was the last time you were stopped in your tracks by a piece of logic that shifted your thinking on something important?

Studies show that on social media, we are much more likely to seek out and promote views that converge with our own and shout down those that differ, even though they might be genuinely held. Which is dangerous, ugly, and ultimately counter-productive.

The growing anger online about just simply having to listen to different opinions is increasingly apparent. File photo

As the host of a current affairs panel show on the ABC, where we work hard to present diverse views, faces, voices and cultures as well as expertise and authority on fistfuls of subjects daily, the growing anger from some of our online audience about just simply having to listen to different opinions is increasingly apparent.

And yes, The Drum’s audience share overall has been steadily increasing so I am not saying people are turning off as a consequence, but that they are raging louder in the expectation that we should only ever cheer at the television. Who cares if you jeer? The point is to prosecute and defend your views in public, then others might follow. You can’t just yell that people are wrong.

And we regularly ask that our guests and viewers act with respect.

Take for example, the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank based in Melbourne, which is highly influential, and regularly seeds members of parliament, like Tim Wilson, James Paterson and potentially Georgina Downer. Former prime ministers and current ministers are members (Tony Abbott and Mitch Fifield) and significant swathes of the Coalition pay attention to the policies of the IPA. It is hardly a fringe group.

Yet there is a concerted campaign on Twitter to ensure the IPA should never be given a voice on a show like The Drum.

It’s incredibly frustrating to witness silos of ideas calcify in Australia. Paul Carracher

One genuine concern is about disclosure of funding, which is a significant one - it would be far better if think tanks were legally required to reveal all funding, so we can best assess contributions to public debate. This includes the likes of the Australia Institute, the McKell Institute, the Centre for Independent Studies and the Sydney Institute, as well as the IPA.

In the absence of this requirement we ask all guests to disclose conflicts of interest in this email sent to them before they come on the show:

“In the interests of providing transparency for our audience, we ask that any potential conflict of interest be declared to us beforehand, and on air if necessary. This includes associations with political parties, unions, lobby groups, industry associations or any other group associated with campaigning on contentious issues that may be discussed on the program. It may also be necessary to reveal funding sources of organisations you are associated with if they are relevant. We will, of course, discuss the details of any disclosures with you beforehand."

But it is only the IPA that is shouted down when they appear on air. So much so that it has become disproportionate and irrational. When I asked someone this week on Twitter how many times he thought we had the IPA on this year, he suggested 50.

Julia Baird on The Drum. Supplied

The answer is three. Two representatives of the IPA have appeared on The Drum in 2018, with one – economic analyst Daniel Wild – appearing twice. This is out of a total of about 530 panel spots. Yet even a few days ago, Philip Adams suggested in The Australian that we at The Drum were “rolling out the red carpet for the IPA”.

The diversity we seek to reach on the show is wide-ranging and includes expertise, gender, culture, geographic location, religion, age, ethnicity, view, sexuality and politics. And one recurring problem is finding strong conservative voices to come on the show.

The Australian media landscape is increasingly spotted with large silos and part of the reason for that is the fact that a large number of prominent conservative commentators – like Chris Kenny, Ross Cameron, Rowan Dean – have exclusive contracts with Sky and will not appear elsewhere.

In my view, this has a huge and little discussed impact.

It also means that some of the loudest critics of the ABC can’t or won’t come on the flagship daily panel show just to discuss ideas. Some conservatives ask for money to appear. Some will say privately that they don’t want the attack, that there is little incentive to cross silos just to be abused on Twitter.

Some examples: in recent months, Kenny and Cameron, we’ve asked Janet Albrechtsen – who politely declined – Rita Panahi – who said The Drum was a “terrible show” – and Gemma Tognini- who has a contract with Sky - to come on the show. I won’t name them all as our door remains chocked open (Gerard Henderson, I am looking at you).

It’s incredibly frustrating to witness silos of ideas calcify in Australia. But when conservative advocates, thinkers, pundits and policy analysts like those from the IPA do appear on the show, Twitter automatically erupts with abuse – irrespective of what they actually say.

This is foolish. Silos are about gathering armies, about attack, and the casualties are civility and persuasion. It’s taking more and more muscle to carve out public spaces for argument, not antagonism, and for talking, not trolling.

If you have only conviction without persuasion, you won’t convince anyone.

Julia Baird hosts The Drum on ABCTV.