Challenging the status quo: What is the objective of an interview or a panel discussion?

It is quite interesting to see reactions to interviews. "He was not grilled enough", "They never ask him the hard questions", "Awesome!! That's how you should humilate these @#$#@!", "Only Arnab has the courage to yell at .."

In short, the man on the chair is the criminal. The interview is simply meant to prove what we already know. 

Is that what a talk or a discussion is about? Confirming, agreeing upon what we already know or have assumed? Even if we succeed at doing that, what have we achieved? What have we improved? What have we achieved? Aren't we exactly at the same spot we started? The sides are already chosen, and the man in the center is the judge. Whare's the fun in that?

I think a good interview approaches not from a position of close minded aggression, but a position of open minded humility. "I don't know" rather than "I will tell you what's wrong". The objective is not humiliation, catching them on the wrong foot; but understanding the other person, his perspective. Not to be confused with agreement. The talk becomes a mutual investigation - the aim is to find out the truth and move on, not to catch the lie and badger him down. 

The same goes for panel discussions; even the mature ones Arnab's being the least). The aim is still to trap - but in a quieter way maybe. 

I wish interviewers would ask themselves the following questions:

- Am I trying to prove him wrong, or to find out the truth?

- Once the answers make the truth obvious, is it worth getting the person to admit it?

- What is the issue? People lying or the impact those lies create?

- What am I aiming to LEARN, rather than PROVE from this discussion? 

- What issue am I aiming to achieve clarity, not a conviction - through this discussion?

- Am I behaving like a judge or a student?

The masses enjoy cheap rhetoric. But I strongly believe an intelligent investigation - produces a positive transformation in the overall situation by itself. It is a step forward for everybody. Rhetoric simply hardens the polarities.  A real conversation has to be tasted to be believed. We are just too used to blind rhetoric, that's all!