I found this “sceptics” podcast incredibly disappointing and frustrating. Somehow the Hayley and Michael never managed to even make any compelling argument against his viewpoints other than the fact that his views entailed a conspiracy. Unless you have actually researched the science to question his absolute nonsense, I don’t see the point in interviewing him.
I am all for hearing peoples eclectic and alternative viewpoints – but there comes a point when you are just hearing dribble. Would you listen to a church minister speak for half an hour on a podcast without any atheist rebuttal? Probably not. Likewise, I don’t think any sceptic likes completely irrational viewpoints to spew into their brain without the host challenging them.
This podcast has potential to be so much more and I really hope it does improve. If you really want to “be reasonable”, you have to accept that some ideas and viewpoints are so eclectic and irrational that they are not even worth postulating. If you do want to play with them – then they need to be prepared to actually debate back and provide a compelling argument.
There is nothing wrong with choosing to interview people like this. However, you need to realise what you are getting yourself into. You are giving open airtime to people with crazy views yet asking sceptics to spend their time listening to the content. If you honestly want to produce a high quality podcast – you need to seriously consider whether you want to debate or give airtime. There is nothing wrong with giving airtime to such views, but if you want sceptics to like it, you need to provide some backlash and reasoning. You need to be reasonable.