The issues that interview covers have been widely discussed. Surely there's someone with an agenda other than "give this guy batting practice pitches right over the plate" that has asked him his opinion. This guy is a politician, being in the media, answering questions and talking about his opinion is part of his job. He's certainly done more interviews than just this one.
Furthermore, a friendly interview is much less informative than a neutral or hostile interview. Anyone can hit batting practice pitches. Anyone can answer questions from a friendly interviewer. A politician's answer to tough questions or to having their answers questioned is far more informative. Jacobin interviewing a leftist/socialist is like Tucker Carlson interviewing some ardent "muh religion and family values" type right winger. It's just a forum for the interviewee to pontificate mostly unchallenged.
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe a magazine doesn't want to be neutral? Maybe that's their competitive edge, maybe that's what their customers are after.
You're just imposing your own values on a business entity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Jacobins
But you'd have to read to figure that out.
Fun remark : only the English Wikipedia article emphasis so much on a link Jacobin-left (for the languages i can read). On the other hand, the french article is much more careful and emphasis more on the difficulty and evolution of interpretation.