Thread by @egavactip

My two cents.

Here's a checklist worth considering before deciding to invite an extremist onto a platform for a 1-on-1 interview or a "debate":

1. Does doing so risk giving the extremist a significant platform from which he/she can grow/reinforce his/her audience?

2. Has the extremist already been substantially covered/exposed?
3. Would a traditional investigative piece with full context be a better way to cover/expose the extremist?
4. Would the extremist be able to exploit a combative/aggressive interview for his/her own purposes?

5. Is there a chance the interviewer might not be as prepared as the extremist or not be able to fully refute/debunk on the spot any allegations made by the extremist?
6. Is there a chance the interview is being sought more because of the notoriety/"get" value of the extremist

than because of anything the interview itself will likely reveal?
7. Is there a substantial likelihood that no noteworthy revelations will come from the interview?
8. Could the entity considering the interview lose credibility by going through with the interview?

If the answer to any of these questions is "yes," then the decision should be strongly scrutinized; if the answer to > one of these questions is "yes," then the interview should not take place.

One-on-one public interviews are not the most effective, accurate or meaningful

ways of conducting journalism, while at the same time they really hand a great deal of control over to the interview subject. When the potential interview subject is an extremist, they become quite problematic.

#newyorker #davidremnick #newyorkerfestival