What’s America’s view on this Tucker Carlson?

  • DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    My view as an American is that Tucker Carlson is a traitor, white supremacist, and known propagandist, fuck that guy, in the ass, with a cactus.

  • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    This line of critique is wrongheaded and empowers Tucker. Putin already commands a platform far above Tucker’s, a media figure cannot provide a bigger platform for Putin than the one he already has. Many liberal journalists have interviewed Putin without facing this critique, it’s applied here because Tucker is a reactionary shithead.

    The better critique is that you have for-profit entertainment companies capitalizing on this, and how that affects the content.

    • Liam Mayfair@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      What liberal media journalists have managed to interview Putin since he began his invasion of Ukraine in 2022? I thought Carlson was the first Western person to manage that.

      • maynarkh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’d argue Carlson also didn’t manage to interview him, apparently Putin just rambled along without answering any questions.

      • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Adding the qualifier of “since 2022” seems to presume there’s an unspoken taboo between western liberal media that Putin shan’t be interviewed, rather than Putin being more restrictive than he already was and seeing an opportunity in Tucker. Lionel Barber is probably the closest a “real” US journalist could have been to Putin and writes about the increasing difficulty of this in 2020. This includes psychological tricks like being made to wait excessively long to weaken his cognition before the meeting. He has a good piece on Tucker’s interview about how Putin ran the show and used him.

        The reason why Putin chose this interview is because Tucker is a locus of division in US politics. Tucker isn’t raising Putin’s platform, Putin is raising Tucker’s platform. This imbues Tucker’s reactionary politics with more legitimacy, which benefits Putin.

  • ZapBeebz_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    “Sooner or later this will end in agreement,” was Putin’s message, arguing that Nato was coming to realise that defeating Russia on the battlefield would be impossible.

    Does Putin realize that NATO is effectively fighting Russia with both arms tied behind it’s back right now? We’re funding Ukraine (who are doing a phenomenal job, fwiw), but we’re not even giving them the top of the line hardware. If the US actually got involved, Russia would pretty much instantly lose any glimmer of air superiority they have, and Ukraine could advance all the way to Moscow under NATO air cover. Like, the only reason Russia still exists is because NATO hasn’t even tried to fight Russia on the battlefield yet.

      • Wogi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        And we’re learning that a teenager with a drone can be hilariously effective against modern weapons.

        So is Russia. Except Russia is learning how to combat the kids with drones too. They’re gaining invaluable battlefield experience that NATO troops simply aren’t.

        Reports vary from side to side, from showing that Russians are curb stomping Ukraine to Ukraine is holding it’s own. So, sure, NATO tossing the kid gloves to Ukraine and putting up a fight is comforting, but it isn’t the whole picture. Russia wins a war of attrition. NATO is made up of democracies and war fatigue sets in fast when it’s someone else’s war. Russia is a de facto fascist dictatorship with deep oil pockets. The only thing that turns their troops around is the head of state dying, or a massive coup. Reports of ether being imminent seem to be rather premature.

        • Tja@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          War attrition sets in much slower when you’re not at war.

          Yes, my government is sending some old equipment and dedicating 10% of the military budget (which is like 2% of the total spending) to help Ukraine.

          That is much less shocking than “Dave from school came back without a leg, and my cousin John didn’t come back at all”.

        • rammer@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          They’re gaining invaluable battlefield experience that NATO troops simply aren’t.

          Oh, yes they are. Ukraine is in close contact with NATO countries and sharing intel. NATO countries are also buying drones in bulk right now. And developing ones that Russia will not see until they try to pick a fight with NATO.

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      My guess is is does, but he wants the US to lose interest and move on so coloring this as an exercise in futility helps further that goal.

    • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yeah right, NATO commands far more nuclear warheads than Russia! They’d definitely loose in a thermonuclear exchange!

      • Liam Mayfair@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        If the nuke comes out, it won’t make an ounce of a difference who has more of them: if only each side can manage to land a small handful, everyone is equally and utterly fucked.

        This principle alone is why NATO has not engaged Russia more directly.

        • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Yeah but they’d loose too! :D

          I wonder if people forgot, or maybe gen Z and millenials never really know how bad nuclear weapons are. Even a regional nuclear exchange would probably lead to a nuclear winter and then a nuclear summer, completely fucking the climate. As long as we have them, it’s inevitable that we’ll eventually use them. Just the law of large numbers / Murphey’s law. The wars climate change will cause will make that even more likely. But hey, lets keep playing stupid games.

          • ZapBeebz_@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            At the same time, the world can’t just roll over and let every tin pot dictator do whatever they want just because they have a nuke.

    • LordOfLocksley@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      If the US actually got involved air superiority would be the least of our worries. The minute any major NATO nation gets properly involved, the war goes nuclear very soon after

      • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Putin said that about lethal aid, Putin said that about tanks, Putin said that about f-16s, etc. Will Putin really start Wolrd War 3 over The Donbas and Crimea?

      • Jaysyn@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’m betting there are a lot of people under Putin that don’t want to die for his stupidity.

      • ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        They should have thought of that before co-signing the Budapest accords. At least two NATO countries are already involved.

        The last time Russian units engaged Americans in combat they were so outmatched that the Russian chain of command disavowed their own guys and pretended not to know them. Nuclear conflagration would be a much better death by comparison.

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Mutually assured destruction is pretty much why no one will ever actually go through with that if their target also has nukes or is protected by a country that has them. It’s one of the major reasons no country that has nukes wants to disarm.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                No worries. Libya did give up its nuclear program as well, but it was because all the countries that invaded Afghanistan in 2001 said, “do it or you’re next.”

            • 52fighters@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Gaddafi would still be alive. Dictators now need nuclear weapons to assure survival. Look for the world to get real crazy real fast.

                • 52fighters@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  You realize Muammar Gaddafi only died 12 years ago and Russia only invaded Ukraine two years ago? Nuclear weapon programs take at least that long to develop. Ukraine and Libya had programs (Ukraine actually had weapons) and abandoned them, much to their demise. If they kept their programs, they wouldn’t have had these problems.

  • Crack0n7uesday@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    The part where he claims to have asked Bill Clinton if Russia could join NATO was hilarious, whether he ever asked Clinton or not. Other than that most of the interview was “We’re just reclaiming Russian land from over a century ago” and “China is the real enemy”.

    • Tom_Hanx_Hail_Satan@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yeah, a lot of it is outrage bait. That is basically how Trump got elected, outrage -> coverage, coverage->legitimacy.

      • Squizzy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        It is fairly significant, he’s an aggressor in a war currently affecting everything from NATO to inflation. And he has denied access to Western interviewers up until now (in recent times).

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Because our “free press” is just the “ad fee press” now. Their ONLY concern is how much they can profit off of news coverage. Outrage = clicks/views = ad revenue.

        • Tja@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          That’s what happens when people don’t want to pay for anything, including journalism.

          What are the first 15 comments everytime someone posts a NYT article? “oh, no, paywall, fuck the NYT, greedy Bastards what money for their work”.

          You end up with tabloids, clickbait and ad infested shit pages.

          • Urist@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            No, it is just a plain defect of capitalistic monetization schemes not aligning with what is good for society. Also, for-profit news stink of corruption and bourgeoisie propaganda with added deficiency of boring clickbait tabloid shitreads more adequate as toilet paper.

            • Tja@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              Yes, state run media never has propaganda. Glory to the Supreme Leader!

              • Urist@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                We are talking about financing. You calling it “state run” only serves to reveal your own bias. It is very much possible to have non profit independent news as well as public funded news outside of politicians control. We have this in Norway, which is really fucking important because one fucking company has bought all for profit news agencies.

                Speaking of glory to the supreme leader, the company in question is also privately held like some sort of Succession fantasy.

                • Tja@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Yes, Norway, the richest country of the world per capita, a very relatable and reproducible system.

  • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    The American had touted his sit-down with Putin as a triumph for free speech, asserting that he was heading where no Western news outlets dared to tread.

    its amazing that carlson points out his own purpose here is not ‘news’.

    • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      Amusingly, even the russian government corrected him on that too - to paraphrase, “we have lots of requests to interview Putin, he just doesn’t want to do it”

      • Hyperreality@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        “we have lots of requests to interview Putin, he just doesn’t want to do it”

        Because they’re actual journalists who would ask serious questions.

    • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      The even more amazing part is that the Kremlin debunked him. They said they constantly get interview requests from journalists. They just never accept them.

      Edit: Just saw this posted as a response already.

  • sleepmode@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Cucker Tarlson bringing us the “real” story. Putin is worried about slanted journalists not agreeing with his narrative, gets the biggest softball pitcher ever and can’t even talk around his ego. Mad cringe.

  • AirDevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    You know when you’re at a park, see a dog, feel something squish under your foot, and then pick up your fooh to look at it? Yeah, exactly like that but in human form

      • Skua@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Restore the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and let Estonia into the Nordics by also making the Finnish-Estonian Conmonwealth

        • Gobbel2000@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          That commonwealth is called the EU today and, along with NATO, is the reason why these countries are in a comparitively safer position. It would be much riskier for Russia to invade there.

  • Candelestine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Tucker is our most famous right-winger. That’s basically it. He can say whatever the hell he wants, due to our first amendment, which protects both freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This includes a freedom to willfully lie, unfortunately, unless one has been placed under oath.

    • SinningStromgald@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      But it shouldn’t allow him to call what he does “news” or “journalism”. Him, and others like him, should have bumpers before and after every segment that says “the views expressed are purely the opinion of the host and do not necessarily reflect reality or facts” and not at the breakneck speed they used to do those car dealer and drug commercial disclaimers.

    • Custoslibera@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      “Well are we going to have a serious conversation? Because firstly I need to tell you about the 1647 agreement between the ethnic Russians located in the western Donbas who sent a letter signed gestures off screen to aide here see these letters, completely legitimate. Completely. They say that Ukraine belongs to Russia for ever and ever and they are Nazis because in 1806 the countries border was changed in the Crimean-Polish revolutionary conflict led by the Tsar of Russia.”

    • ralphio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I watched, but it truly is a bunch of rambling.

      Putin pushed the CIA sniper incitement conspiracy theory, but didn’t present evidence.

      On the Nazi thing, he seems to be pivoting to he invaded because Ukraine doesn’t have strong enough laws to prevent Nazi speech. Again not very compelling.

      He again brings up the conflict pre-invasion in east UA, but fails to mention that Russia was backing the insurgents.

      He brings up that the change of power in 2014 wasn’t done to the letter of the UA constitution, but fails to mention that the current government clearly has a popular mandate.

      He rehashes all the arguments that the West has been the aggressor since the fall of the USSR with NATO expansion.

      Other than that it was pretty off topic. Tucker doesn’t press him much at all, and when he does Putin deflects and Tucker gives up.

      Overall nothing you wouldn’t expect.

      ETA: just remembered, this was kind of strange. The Nord Stream pipeline blasts were brought up and it was one of the few things that Tucker pushed him on for evidence that UA/US were behind it, but Putin doesn’t want to talk evidence. It’s kinda weird since this might be the one point where Russia has some ground to stand on, but Putin just defects. Maybe he doesn’t want to set a precedent that evidence is required.

      • bedrooms@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        The Nord Stream pipeline blasts were brought up and it was one of the few things that Tucker pushed him on for evidence that UA/US were behind it, but Putin doesn’t want to talk evidence. It’s kinda weird since this might be the one point where Russia has some ground to stand on, but Putin just defects. Maybe he doesn’t want to set a precedent that evidence is required.

        I don’t believe it was UA or US. IIRC (a) the mass media suspected it was Russia and (b) Russian navy was spotted.