I gather that he's . . . controversial, at best. People don't go to him for evenhanded or calm treatment of issues, especially since he's kind of notorious for refusing to entertain any kind of dissent in his comments, let alone engage with them. Which is his right, heaven knows; but it leaves one unable to be sure that, for instance, people haven't tried to correct him on the facts.

But at least it means his word isn't likely to be accepted as gospel by all readers. If that helps.