My understanding is they declined an invitation. I think they were prioritizing battleground states at the time, and didn't want to give Rogan three hours.
There has been some debate about that.
They did seem to push back on the time commitment.
But after the election reports came out that they did try to accommodate Rogan only for him to say he was taking a personal day.
That day them turned out to be Rogan making time for Trump instead.
There has been push back on those reports as well.
We may never get the whole story.
But it does seem that "they ignored it" is overly simplistic.
That it was probably a big enough deal that they should have made more effort does seem very plausible. So you could say they ignored (or were ignorant of) how big a deal it was.
Now, do I think she would be scared to talk to anyone? Nope. But, at the same time, I can see how they might feel like the juice isn't worth the squeeze. Rogan pretended to be undecided, but he surely leaned to MAGA. Would it have been a fair interview? I mean, sure, Trump went on a bunch of shows, but did he face a really partisan leftist panel that would have grilled him about his actual record or called out his lies? Hell, the mainstream media doesn't really do that for the most part, though on the occasions when they did, Trump cried like a little bitch..
The real question is back then when Rogan was pretty strongly pro-Trump, how much would that have made it not worth while?
I really don't know. It's hard to be sure how Rogan would lean in that and it is hard to be sure how his audience would take it.
The after math and post-interview spin is also tricky to guess.
To me, it sounds like they thought it would be good to do, but weren't going to prioritize it above all other things.
People can say that was a mistake, but it is different from her "ducking it" or "ignoring it".
