Well, there are "scolds" and there are people who think it's bad to compel female employees or contractors to have sex with their boss.

Hunter S. Thompson was able to interview Nixon, despite a kind of hatred he held for the man that was nearly blinding.

If you want to get people to let their guard down, be agreeable. Draw them out. Smile and nod. Let them hang themselves with their own words. That's a journalistic skill.

If you just want to be angry at them, well, write a letter. Yell at them at the phone.

With that in mind, is he there to 1) Let his guests know how much he agrees or disagrees with them? 2) Get them to say whatever and find out who they really are?

That's not at all what happened between Rogan and Diaz. Diaz tells the story of the time he borderline raped a woman repeatedly to the extent she became depressed and defeated, and Rogan laughs along like it's hilarious. Diaz returned to the show afterwards and the furor about it, to the extent there was, was not raised by Rogan after the podcast, but by would-be Rogan-cancellers.

It's fine if you like and listen to Rogan. Maybe he's grown since then. I think it's less fine to pretend like bad things didn't happen, aren't bad, or that Rogan is a journalist luring his friends to hang themselves by confessing misdeeds.

I don't listen to the guy at all, he seems like a vaguely credulous meathead, but I guess it works out for him.

You should watch or read someone like Hunter S. Thompson interview people he despises. He got his yucks on with Nixon, and this is a guy who purportedly trained his dog to savage a cloth dummy at the word "Nixon." You smile and laugh and let people hang themselves.

Similarly, I've heard the most shameful and shocking things from people you wouldn't guess, because I am told I have a very non-judgemental demeanor. Father Confessor jokes have been made, and I faintly smile and raise my eyebrows, and then people tell me about drinking a full steaming stein of their own urine. I've heard worse, far worse. People like to unburden themselves.

If you aren't judgmental about repeat sexual abuse, I don't know what to tell you.

Ah, and here is the crux of it. For you, to judge means you must express it. You have to let people know about it! It's not real unless you shout it from the rooftops, is it?

And therefore, if someone doesn't judge -> scold right then and there, why, there's no judgment at all.

I submit that this is not true.

I think "don't make sexual assault part of the interview" is a good virtue line. Even "don't make jokes about sexually assaulting employees" is good praxis, if it's a joke.

I don't think "being repelled by stories of sexual assault" and "scolds" are the same thing.