Thread by @MattNegrin

The only good case for putting bad-faith liars on TV is you can "hold them accountable" and "challenge" them

Almost nobody can pull this off because it's virtually impossible to fact-check liars who aren't there to engage in good faith and are just abusing your platform

But...

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1373808553476157443

Mehdi is the only interviewer who can really do this almost perfectly. I'd still argue that Crenshaw, a liar, gets a win just by being booked - he looks legitimate, when he's knowingly spreading false information. But nobody challenges them like Mehdi

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1373812187211431941?s=20

Yes I wish more hosts would interview Republicans like this, which requires a lot of research and prep time and actually knowing the material and having the no-stakes-if-they-hate-you approach of cutting off a liar

But Crenshaw can still hold this up as "I took on the lying msm"

It's an imperfect situation to start with because an entire party operates in pure bad faith. So the best-case scenario for now is hoping that TV journalists admire this approach and try to copy it, instead of just giving all the Ron Johnsons an uninterrupted platform on MTP

In summary, this is a dilemma for news outlets who can’t write off an entire party but also with just a handful of exceptions aren’t equipped to challenge liars effectively in live interviews. But in general the “fewer chucks and more mehdis” rule should apply across the board