Devil's advocate answer: I think that individuals talking to other individuals without referencing a specific source to confirm what they're saying could arguably describe Facebook. And I think there's a very good argument that Facebook (and other such venues) is actually precisely what got us here.
Grown up response: I don't think you're putting due emphasis on the importance of having a source of reliable information or solid ideas to share in the first place. Either that or you're getting the impression that I said individuals talking to other individuals isn't important, all this country needs is the one thing I mentioned I wish I'd see more of. And that's not what I said. I'm not disagreeing that individuals talking to other individuals can play an important role (though I'll add that it's not as simple as you're making it out to be, not any ol' body can do it, because if you don't have the zen to effectively listen to responses when you're talking to people then you're probably just making your own party look bad). All I've been saying is that a more balanced source of reporting, someone who was actually trying to understand the other side in order to report what the other side thinks - rather than simply allowing their preferred official/candidate air time to regurgitate the same tired-but-still-emotionally-charged talking points without challenging them whilst selectively choosing opposing sound bites that'll cause the most outrage - is something that'd be immeasurably helpful and doesn't even currently exist.
*The "other side" here varies across different topics, it's not one homogenous group always against the opposing homogenous group. Some - since the Republican Exodus from the Trumpublican party - are actually differences that exist within the same bigger umbrella of (new) Democrat or (new) Republican). An example of "other sides" that exist within the same party currently might be the topic of cancelling all student loans. A good reporter (or podcaster, or whatever) would be able to effectively present both sides.
Maybe there's a different mentality in non-voters in your country. My own past experience with people who don't vote is that they don't want to talk politics either. "Neither side can be believed" kind of stuff. This is from the Before Times, but I'd be very surprised if they're generally more amenable to hearing about it now.
And I don't think it's productive to focus more on either "non-voter" or "Trump-voter" - since neither of those groups are homogenous either - and rather choose the individuals within each (and/or other groups) who are capable of actual dialogue, capable of examining their own beliefs in the face of contradictory 'proof' when it's strong enough, who don't resort to railroading or manipulation to 'win' being right - who can actually reason well enough to know when an argument merits credence on it's own vs. can't recognize when an argument itself is weak (but faith in the thing being true is so strong they can't see the weakness of the argument). There are the Trump folks like the ones ceecee described. In my experience, there seem to be 3 categories: aggressive railroading (trying to win being right through sheer force of will); manipulative ad hominem sort of stuff (TDS, "orange man bad" dismissals); and spastic deflection (when people have no idea how they sound, they're all over the place and practically spewing word salad, yet their conviction that they're right is so strong that they seem to assume - no matter what tangent their mind has taken them on - they're magically presenting strong arguments). <- Those things are pretty pointless to circumvent. I think this is the point you've been trying to make, and I already agree with it. But I'd lump the "neither side can be believed" non-voters in with them. When it comes to changing hearts and minds, it requires being someone whose own heart and mind can change (because people can tell) in the first place*, and finding others in other groups. I disagree that we'd find the biggest population of those in the non-voter group. They're in every group. It's just a matter of finding them.
*I personally am not zen. I live in a very mixed area - 60/40 Trump to Biden ratio, according to that recent NYT page that calculated the ratio of the latest election results where we live, and isolated bubbles of both just a stone's throw in either direction. But I know full well that I'm only doing damage to my 'party' if I get into a conversation with anyone who uses even a modicum of the things I mentioned (aggressive railroading, manipulation/gaslighting/spastic deflection). I don't hurl insults in person, but I shoot "Are you fucking retarded?!?" looks and/or it bleeds out into my tone. I'm not proud of the fact that I don't have patience for it, but there are a lot of things in my life I could stand to work on that'd improve the quality of my life and that's just one of them. (For the record, I don't have much patience for that kind of behavior in my own party either).
It would help me cultivate the patience, exponentially, if I had access to something that'd help me understand their general points of view BEFORE going into conversation with them though - and that's where the kind of interviews/podcasts/whatever I've been describing would come in awful handy. If someone talented and patient enough to suss that kind of explanation of them, so that I wouldn't have to - someone far more talented and patient than I am - it'd go a *long, long way* to helping get to a place where I COULD get into conversation without worrying about a "What the fuck is wrong with you?!?!" attitude taking over.
Makes me angry, sad, and tired. -_-
