Maybe I should provide some more public examples in case no one is aware.. It's looking like this episode in particular is becoming more and more sensationalized. 1500 dollar tickets?!
https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/20190404-peterson

Another was a three part series with Sam, Jordan, and guests including Eric Weinstein and Douglas Murray; hosted by Pangburn Philosophy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jey_CzIOfYE

My questions to you: do you consume this form of media, has any of the content or conversation had an impact on your worldview, do you feel it will become more prominent and do you feel it’s capable of shaping broader social conversation or will it just stay on the margins of the web? — aporiap

When I'm driving, walking, doing some ordinary house work I do listen to these podcasts you refer to. This is because +1 hour debates or lectures do take time. It doesn't have much impact on my whole World view (old dogs don't learn new tricks), yet you learn a lot from them. I also listen to various think tanks, both conservative and leftist/progressive like Brookings Institute, CSIS or Cato-Institute. Then also some University podcasts are very interesting, and for example Oxford Union is one of my favourites. Bloggingheads Tv on Youtube is another interesting format, where two persons, typically academic people talk about various issues.

I don't think the template will be a huge success, but if you want to hear what people actually have to say, then listening something longer than few minutes and that has various speakers and a Q&A in the end are quite beneficial. Many times the actual lectures can be very surprising as you see what kind of a mirage the media can paint about some people.

I think the only thing lacking is basically is that these podcasts and Youtube-videos cannot be made in "Chatham House" rules, basically the rule you can refer to what was said in the talk, but you cannot say who has said what. Especially in politics, this is a huge issue. Politicians and military personnel simply don't dare to say what they actually think in the open public sphere what they think as any their opposition can have a field day if their message can be interpreted in a bad way.

And naturally what is surely lacking is the non-public disclosure of issues. The debate that isn't given to the public and basically is secret can be the most educative and eyeopening. And this is extremely unfortunate especially in a democracy where a totally different narrative or debate emerges behind closed doors.

Anyway, I drifted off the subject, but only wanted to mention that public discourse even in our democracies is limited, unfortunately.