I agree. The host’s personal beliefs are not relevant to their hosting abilities.
On the other hand, isn’t that why they dumped Mike Richards? I thought he was great on the air.
I recently discovered that Pat Sajak is far-right, and works with conservative think tanks. However, that’s not going to make me stop watching Wheel of Fortune.
I’m not at all sure it’s cool to deliberately ruin a man’s career simply because he once made some stupid remarks on a podcast. I’m certain most people have done something similar at some time or other in their lives.
Plus, I have a visceral loathing of snitches, especially ones who remain anonymous.
How is it “snitching” to discuss what someone once said on their podcast?
Richards was sunk by much more than “something he once said on a podcast.” It was a long pattern of skeevy behavior.
Bialik’s views on vaccinations (which are actually much more nuanced and considered than most people realize) are nowhere near the same thing.
There’s also her (continuing, AFAIK) sponsorship of a dietary supplement of dubious effectiveness from a dubious company.
Also, like it or not, a host’s potentially controversial opinions may very well be of concern to a show’s sponsors.
And it’s this kind of bullshit that lets sexual misconduct and harassment go on for so long.
I have a visceral hatred of bullies, criminals and their enablers.
This might have pointed Jonathan in the right direction on that Daily Double:
I was one pole away from being correct 
I never expected to see a seven day champion replace Matt. Jonathan’s 7th win was a struggle. He didn’t play well. I’m curious if he can regroup for game 8.
You’re right, he didn’t play well. But at least he had weak opponents.
Oh yeah. The middle woman (Katie?) was capable, but the rightmost (Olivia?) was so far off on some responses that I found myself asking, “How did she ever make it through the auditions?”
She was another player for whom the year “1066” apparently has no meaning. In 1194, William the Conqueror would have been somewhere around 166 years old.
Eh, my WAG for that clue was William the Conqueror as well. Whoever the correct answer was (I’ve forgotten) meant nothing at all to me.
Stuff that happened 800-plus years ago is not in most people’s wheelhouse. I have a vague notion that “1066” refers to some important event, but I’m not sure what, and had no idea that the date was connected to WtC.
Then again, I’ve never appeared on Jeopardy and probably wouldn’t pass the audition. 
1066 was the year of the Battle of Hastings and the Norman Conquest of England. Richard I (Lionheart, the king in all the Robin Hood stories) had himself recrowned in 1194 because his brother John (who eventually became king and signed the Magna Carta in 1215) was getting uppity.
The only known example of a major language resulting from the career of one person is English. It would probably be nothing like it is today if William (a French speaker) hadn’t conquered Anglo-Saxon England in 1066.
That was a pretty good Final Jeopardy clue. I’m sure most viewers understood it was a reference to Hannibal Lecter, but obviously not everyone could come up with author Thomas Harris. I’ll bet most people also don’t realize the Lecter character dates back to 1981.
I figured that was just a desperate, grasping-at-straws answer to avoid not saying anything.
That was me. My first thought was Hannibal Lecter, but I knew The Silence of the Lambs came out in 1991, because I watched it while living briefly in Albuquerque. Then I remembered he came first from a book but could not think of the author.
Ditto, except I didn’t know there even was a book.
I actually got this one right, maybe. I said “what is Richard the Lionhearted?” because I vaguely remembered him crusading. I don’t know if that superfluous “ed” on the end would have been enough to get it wrong.
I did not think of Hannibal Lecter for Final Jeopardy. Even if I had, I don’t know that I would have come up with Thomas Harris; odd, since I just saw the the movie Black Sunday a week or two ago, and found out that it was also based on a book of his.