Is there a place to bring on despicable people in order to show how despicable people are? I didn’t see the Tapper segment (I like Tapper), but whenever Spencer or someone like him comes on any show, it seems to me that implicit in the host’s decision to bring on such a person is this: “Okay, folks. This guy who I’m about to interview is an appalling man with appalling ideas, and I bring him on the show to let people know just how appalling he is.”

Again, I didn’t see the Tapper segment and can’t comment on what went down, but putting aside this particular segment for a moment, I want to ask this: Is there any merit to my argument in principle? If, for example, a televangelist says something ugly and stupid (they usually do) and then that stupid remark is shown during a broadcast that goes out to a wider public (beyond the televangelist’s perch), I don’t mind knowing that he’s been given an outlet to show the world just how stupid he can be. Or consider Steve Bannon. Some people were livid that he appeared on 60 Minutes. Why? I don’t like Bannon but had no problem listening to him discuss his ideas with Charlie Rose (I don’t like Rose, but that’s a matter for another time). Getting back to Spencer, I’ve no doubt that Tapper can’t stand Spencer and in no way supports him. Did Tapper fawn over Spencer? I doubt it. Did Tapper laugh at anything Spencer said? I doubt it. Did Tapper nod in agreement with anything Spencer said? I doubt it. Seeing that Tapper no doubt dislikes Spencer, why was Spencer on the show? My first paragraph above may give us a clue.

I now await your brickbats.