Originally Posted by MarkvW
Since when is it an interviewer's job to be "critical?" Isn't it enough for the interviewer to get the subject to express himself? Maybe then, the audience can draw a more informed conclusion for themselves.
What questions should the interviewer have asked? That would be a more constructive criticism.
No, it is not.
Since when: Remember the whole thing about the US First Amendment, itself based on the English Bill of Rights? "When" is thus defined as 1689.
These canons on freedom of speech include 'responsibility' for what is spoken or written.
Freedom of speech, and responsibility for abuses of that freedom, in turn, provide the basis for freedom of the press. The concomitant responsibility for the accuracy of what is written give us Journalistic Ethics and Standards and the Canons of Journalism, which include "Fact Checking".
Thus, a 'constructive criticism' would include that the author conduct the most basic fact checking against Pat's statements. This is especially important when you are dealing with a well-known blowhard.