There's plenty of journalistic value in interviewing him and the audience will be very interested in hearing it.

I'm not sure what being outraged over his interview is going to achieve Signalling you disagree with what he did? To protect people from his hearing his dangerous words? To punish him?

IMO hearing his rationale, seeing how he convinced people, the lies he tells himself, etc should all be analyzed and publicly scrutinized. It's not like he's promoting some new venture or something.

Forget about the journalists, other speakers and interviewees are attending...why would THEY want to be associated with this?

Associated with what? An interview being done with a public figure?

They aren't suddenly friends with the guy because he gave a virtual interview over Zoom at the same event as them.

You don't need to be constantly publicly showing your outrage to make it clear "x person bad". We get it. We know he's bad. Even without such brave moral heroics.

Will he be paid for the appearance? Journalism usually precludes paying for an interview.

> Why would other people agree to share a stage with a guy who has possibly/probably(?) committed a massive fraud?

Netanyahu or SBF?

For personal entertainment? I dunno?

I mean something is gonna go down, might as well be there for the popcorn.

Did you look at the list of speakers? I think that most of them are used to being around fraudsters.

otherwise the stages would be empty