When the person in the hot-seat is in direct control over a platform that can influence major world events, yeah, I think so?

There’s value to confrontational interviews, but not every interview or interviewer needs to be confrontational.

I agree that they don't need to be confrontational necessarily. However, most platforms of any importance will have made contentious decisions that are worth being pressed on. So I think a good interview will press on those decisions (or lack of), and naturally become confrontational.

And there’s a couple of ways of going about that, depending on the guest and the interviewer. If you’re Chris Wallace interviewing Bill Clinton on Fox News, you can just start an argument because Bill Clinton loves arguing with people and will rise to the challenge. Other times you have to open people up with kindness.

Perhaps when the subject is that powerful, they do?

Is this actually a belief that Zuck is so unbelievably powerful that he doesn’t deserve the courtesy of a less confrontational interview, or just a rationalization for the fact that you don’t like him very much and would prefer to see him humiliated?

Confrontational interviews are a difficult style to do well, and probably not a great style for Joe Rogan in particular. If the guest is smarter or at least more quick-witted than the interviewer, the interviewer can be made to look like a fool.

Also, it’s very easy for that style of interview to make people close down and rely on rehearsed talking points. If you really want to know what someone thinks, you need to create a sense of emotional safety for them to open up. Especially these days. You can’t make the interview feel like an interrogation. Even literal interrogators will tell you that.

It’s not really a belief at all, more of a half-baked thought. I could be swayed in either direction, but I’ll continue to ramble a bit:

Sure, a light-hearted chat with easy questions can of course make a person open up, but when it comes to the billionaire CEO of one of the most powerful companies in the world (or some high-powered politician, or whatever), is it ethical to donate what basically amounts to a PR job (answering softballs and getting to seem relatable while ignoring problematic topics) that is framed to viewers/listeners as an interview?

“Yeah, I heard something about Facebook and privacy that sounded bad, but I saw Zuckerberg on Joe Rogan talking about hunting elk and smoking weed, he seemed like a relatable guy. I’m sure he tries his best and wouldn’t betray his users on purpose.”

Perhaps for you, but perhaps you also have a massive chip on your shoulder

> I guess it’s a matter of opinion whether or not making people sweat is the mark of a good interview.

Exactly. Part of the reason Joe Rogan is so huge is that a lot of people are sick of the current interviewing model, where some sneering journalist (who usually lives in Brooklyn) asks a bunch of leading questions in an effort to humiliate his guest by luring them into a contradiction.

Well-adjusted people don't regularly enjoy watching others get humiliated. They'd rather see an interesting conversation between interesting people, which is exactly what Rogan gives them and exactly what the traditional media does not.