While the article’s well-intentioned, it’s essentially an instance of the logical fallacy of false equivalencies: wading into a political rally is equivalent to engaging in an act of intellectual curiosity. With any modest, reasonable scrutiny it’s easy to see why this is most likely not the case.

As others have pointed out, one doesn’t need to attend a rally to gain a reasonable understanding of the position of a candidate who’s previous rallies, debates, interviews and congressional record is all easily accessible for thorough review and analysis.

Beyond this, there are thousands of column inches, and hours of recordings written on and spoken about this candidate by political analysts, pundits, and a broad class of journalists (including former mentors and friends) — who happen to be focused on covering this election.

Sure, ideas deserve the light of day — this idea itself is a very old one — but attending a rally is not a necessary means by which to engage with the ideas of a candidate who’s participated in numerous nationally televised debates, conducted scores of publically available interviews, and articulated and promoted his current positions through a multi-channel media campaign that includes books, articles, websites and social media.

John Oliver refuses to spend any time discussing Donald Trump’s candidacy. Oliver’s refusal is not an act of a man who refused to engage with ideas, but only a man who refuses to offer the slightest form of validation for bad and even dangerous ideas.