Having listened to a lot of episodes, I don't really agree. I think his style is very conversational and deferential to his guests in letting them make their point without interrupting, and he definitely seems very careful never to "ambush" a guest, but if a guest makes an extraordinary claim he'll frequently challenge them on why they believe that. He might not say they're _wrong_, but he'll ask why they think that. To me, that's his primary job. The dude is a comedian and a tv host, I don't need or expect him to filter and debate every subject. He finds interesting people and interviews them in a style that lets them get into depth. I think that's worthwhile and I don't think he has a responsibility outside of that.

This is probably just a very fundamental philosophical disagreement. I _really_ disagree with the notion that the way to deal with crazy people and extreme viewpoints is to deplatform them. In my experience that just pushes the crazy underground and somewhat legitimizes their feeling of being marginalized. If I'm dealing with crazy people, I want to at least know what their crazy beliefs are and why they believe those things.

I mean, sure I think Alex Jones is a dangerous idiot, but he also has enough influence that it's important to understand how he formed his audience in the first place. It's easy to believe that Alex Jones just tricked a bunch of people, but it's more likely that there were people out there wanting what he eventually sold them. IE, he's been riding a wave, he didn't create the wave. It's important to know why that wave is there.