They add basically nothing to the piece, and you had to know that none of them were going to be worth talking to. Barnes and Roger are kind of understandable since you can put them in, and then you can show that you're giving people associated with InfoWars the opportunity to give their side to the story. But Ann Coulter is a zero. She's basically just there to make it clear that she's not as bad as InfoWars, which only serves to launder her image, which is something PBS doesn't need to be engaging with.

Now, the third category is people who I understand having in the documentary, but were probably mishandled. These are people who create targets for the documentary that Alex can exploit, which introduce unearned suspicion about the credibility of the reporting. This group includes Alex's ex-wife, Kelly. No. I understand talking to her, and although solid details rarely seem to come out in her interviews, she knows a lot about InfoWars early days since she was deeply involved in the company. I don't think that you should never talk to her or anything like that, but her being in this documentary at this point opens the door to Alex saying that she's trying to sue him and take his kids away, so this documentary is biased. You got it. It's an attack piece. Got it. The same issue exists with the former Infowars employees that they speak to. One of them, Rob Jacobson, sued Alex for EEOC complaints a couple years ago. And I'm sure he's sincere that he feels guilt about his time at InfoWars, but he continued to work there for four years after Sandy Hook, and he spent 13 years as an InfoWars employee, apparently completely fine getting paid to create complete bullshit like Endgame for a career. He's a source that is impeachable from my perspective and from Alex's, which makes his contribution to the piece kind of pointless.

The goal of the documentary is to inform the public about how conspiracy theories found their way into the mainstream through the lens of Alex's rise to fame.