One need only to analyse how the media treated Andrew Wakefield’s MMR allegations to see how this argument is not true.

The BBC, as one example, attempted to show this as a balanced argument. So, if Wakefield was on, then an opposing views was provided. This gave the impression that the evidence on each side both was also balanced. It was not. Wakefield was in a very small minority. We are still unravelling the damage caused by this.

The same goes for Irving. Even if opposed, the same dangers exist. After Irving has been given one minute’s airtime, there ought to be an hour long documentary, including the weight of expert opinion against him, on the Holocaust for balance, not a brief opposing view. Since that cannot be done they should interview Irving as often as they interview David Icke, Flat Earthers and people who believe Lady Diana was killed by MI5. That is, not at all.

You say that Irving ’s “opinions and presentation of facts is so obviously false, and so easily ridiculed”. Well they are to you, and to me, but to suggest they are to everybody is a bit optimistic to say the least.

Another excellent analysis.

One clarification on your conclusion:
“When a person’s opinions and presentation of facts is so obviously false, and so easily ridiculed, giving them a public platform does not legitimise their views. Rather, it delivers a coup de grace to their credibility, and their argument.”

This is might not be true if the opposing argument that shows it to be ridiculous is not presented at exactly the same time and will sufficient force. (apologies for the double negative - it needs to be as the positive form does not hold in all cases)

In the case of Irving, had the BBC had, say, a random politician or, to be even more controversial, a radical Zionist, to present the opposing case, Irving would not have been trashed unequivocably - there might have been quibble room in the opposing argument.

That listeners who fall foul of this would be suffering from a form of the “well-poisoning” logical fallacy is not the issue: it is that the person offering the platform to Irving laid themselves open to such a fallacy…

Or am I being too precious about this?

The broad point is true though. Better to get the nonsense out in the open where it can be defeated. With added sarcasm for good measure…

Toodle Pip!
PG