I won't have anything to do with him personally and generally try to avoid interacting with people who do. "Lay down with dogs, rise up with fleas" and all that.
Agree.
Kind of a partially formed thought in my head, one I've chewed on over the McPhee/ Kennedy/ can't wait for the others debacle of late:
Traditional media is dead. It is "alive" but useless, a vegetable in a rolling chair. Look what's replaced it: social media, podcasts, blogs, etc. I think we can all agree that these hosts, posters, and authors all have a responsibility to vet their guests the same as journalism USED to act. If you're transmitting information and treating it as fact, you have a duty to ensure, to the best of your ability, the information is correct.
If you to want to lay claim to being the new journalism, the new media, an outlet people can trust in lieu of the CNN's and Fox's of the world, you have a responsibility to act like a journalist.
What about the guests on podcasts though? If we make the argument a podcast host or social media personality should vet their guests, (I think they should) do we place the same burden on the guest? How deep should a guest dig before committing to a show? Should they? What's the threshold for...say Tim Kennedy is hosting a podcast and I agree to go on? How deep should I as a guest dig? Wind the clock back 6 months before the current controversy, what do I look for? Do I read his book? Do I go over every interview he's made, run down and FOIA every thing he's claimed? Do I see he is a legit SF soldier, sniper, MMA guy and stop there? "He's SF qualified and still in uniform. Works for me, see you on Thursday."
Anyway, just a rambling thought.