"Does the mere fact of his large following in an increasingly radicalized and extremist Republican Party require that news organizations broadcast his views to millions?"

Asks Susan B. Glasser in "Don’t Say You Haven’t Been Warned About Trump and 2024/CNN’s awful town hall with the former President heralds a disastrous election year to come" (The New Yorker).

Here's my radical idea: Give up on attacking Trump, the person, and engage with the substance of his policy arguments. Act as if he's a completely ordinary politician — pose as if you felt neutrality toward him personally — and engage with the ideas. 

You really do need to take him seriously. He's presumptively the Republican nominee, and he's got an even chance of getting re-elected to the presidency. You can freak out about that, but you've been freaking about about him for 8 years, and it hasn't fazed him. His supporters tune you out.

Reset. Be normal, and treat him as if he were normal. Give up on trying not to "normalize" him. Forefront the substantive issues, treat all the candidates equally, and let us see how each of them holds up to a thorough grilling. If you're neutral, you can be cruel. We'll watch.

I infer that Glasser would tell me that Trump doesn't do substance. She wrote:

It was the same garbled nonsense, empty catchphrases, and nasty gibberish so familiar from his four years in the White House.

That describes politicians in general. It's all "garbled nonsense, empty catchphrases, and nasty gibberish." It just bothers you more when someone you loathe dishes it out with brio and has fans who love it. 

This 2024 Trump still does not speak in coherent sentences or make arguments. He’s a demagogue. He demagogued.

Biden also fails to speak in coherent sentences. The interviewer should listen to the candidate's statements and drill into the meaning, not get distracted by the thought that this is so obviously defective that voters must deem it all worthless. 

Aside from the sheer awful spectacle, it’s hard to say that any actual news came out of the questioning....

There was a person doing that questioning, Kaitlan Collins, but she's left out of that sentence, as if she had no way to improve the quality of event. Earlier in the article, Glasser gives her credit for trying, but the trying consisted of repeatedly stating the conclusion that a statement of Trump's was not true.

We're told she "struggled, and how could she not, having been assigned a near-impossible task?" What exactly was the "task" and why was it "near-impossible"?

Perhaps "the task" was misdefined, understood as giving Trump enough rope to hang himself and needling him endlessly about how wrong he is about everything in the hope that he'd snap. That is, the task was understood as producing a "sheer awful spectacle." And I suspect what Collins was trying and struggling to do was to break Trump — to make Trump explode into some "blood coming out of her" moment — and that was the "actual news" that didn't happen.