Interviewing someone and agreeing with that someone are two different things. This used to be considered self-evident. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:
Great heaves of outrage have been directed at former Fox commentator Tucker Carlson – who got fired from Fox for telling the truth about the drugs that were never vaccines and the fact that the drug cartels own the media (via advertising) as well as the government they bought with the revenue brought in via all that advertising – on account of his having had the temerity to interview the leader of Russia, Vladimir Putin.
Because interviewing someone constitutes endorsing him, according to the logic of the Leftists (and some Rightists). A journalist, in other words, had better not be neutral and objective.
He must be an ideologue.
He must lecture, even berate. Or just ignore.
Of course, this is fact is why what passes for journalism today is regarded with general contempt, having earned it. Bias is out of the closet now. And something more – and worse. Back in the day, everyone understood that Dan Rather leaned left. But Dan was obliged to at least try to hide his bias, which bound him to some extent at least to the standard of objectivity expected of people whose job it was to convey facts rather than lecture people about what they ought to believe.
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tennyson, Ulysses