I enjoy this podcast immensely. Its guests and topics are timely, and its analysis always probes beneath the surface. Much better than your run-of-the-mill news show.
But here’s a question: the distinguished Noam Chomsky was a guest, and you felt the need to contextualize his interview with a 7-minute preface in which you challenged — without, it must be said, offering much evidence of your own — much of what he would *go on* to say…
…but wouldn’t the time to offer these challenges, WITH evidence, have been DURING the interview?
Without offering an opinion of my own on the topics covered, I will say: that preface comes across as a gambit through which to present your editorial opinions unchallenged, and it opens you up to the charge of relying on unexamined assumptions in order to uphold the narrative of the status quo.
As it so happens, I’m not entirely in agreement with Noam Chomsky on every topic. I agree with him on many points … but where we disagree, because he presents his arguments so carefully and thoroughly, at least I understand where he’s coming from. And overall, I appreciate his willingness to present sensible narratives which counter an often-unquestioned dominant one.
So why, rather than discuss your disagreements with him, would you present your point-of-view as an unchallenged preemptive soliloquy prefacing his interview? Does Noam Chomsky get a rebuttal to your … pre-buttal?
I enjoyed the interview itself, but I was very disappointed by your preface. I cannot understand why you wouldn’t simply present your challenges to your interview subject DURING the interview.
This is a precarious time for journalism, with bad-faith actors across the conservative spectrum fully attacking the very existence of a free press. None of us are helped when a news outlet leaves itself open to being credibly charged with acting in bad faith.
