Here's my counterpoint, and as someone who has long, I guess the word might be "monitored" Jones.

My uncle is an untreated paranoid schizophrenic, and as such, jumped on the Alex Jones bandwagon way back in the day. There's even a video of one of Jones's protest marches that prominently features my grandmother who was dragged to the march by my uncle (no, I'm not linking it).

As such, keeping up with Jones and InfoWars was more of a staying-one-step-ahead-of-the-crazy-person at the holiday dinner table than anything else.

So, having said all that, I know what Jones is, I know what he promotes, and I know what bullshit he spews probably about as well as anyone else who also hates the fucking guy.

I think it's important to give Jones and Breitbart and the rest as much of the spotlight as they want because they're going to fry under it. I don't think most people in this country know who Alex Jones is, what he stands for, and what he believes in, but we know that Trump believes in him.

I think the reason the "basket of deplorables" comment hurt Clinton so much during the election is that there were a lot of reasonable people who did not want to vote for her for a myriad of valid reasons, and they felt like they were being called bad, irredeemable people for not supporting her.

However, a lot of those same people didn't know who they were standing shoulder to shoulder with. They don't know about Alex Jones. They don't know about David Duke. They don't know about Paul Joseph Watson. They don't follow Jack Posobiec on Twitter.

When you see some of the shit pumped out of those sources, you can see why the tag "deplorable" might fit some of these people, because some of them are genuinely fucking awful people on purpose.

The only way to get people to understand who their allies are and who Trump's real hardcore constituency is, and that means giving them the platform.

Giving these people platforms have effectively led to them hanging themselves time and time again. Tomi Laheren? Milo Yiannopolis? Richard B. Spencer?

Do these people have as much influence as they did six to eight months ago, or less because they've been dragged out into the light they thought they wanted.

Putting these people on national TV and saying "The President thinks they're valid sources of information, advice, and strategy" will do more to damage them than any coverage of a nasty custody case ever could.

Give them the mic, and then let themselves hang themselves with the cords.