I consider it normal and reasonable to be unwilling to be interviewed by media sources I consider dishonest and disreputable. For me that, that includes Breitbart. For others, the list would be different, but the concept is the same.
There is zero point in meeting with an interviewer when antagonistic bias is known ahead of time. The resulting interviews cannot be anything other than character assassination.
Not leaning towards one or another. Just trying to understand why, given the terrible track record of the two, one could choose one over the other.
The first step in getting people to engage in a debate is for them to believe that the people in the debate will be acting in good faith. That's often not true—I wouldn't agree to an interview on Fox News, for instance, because I would have no confidence that they'd be acting in good faith.