- cross-posted to:
- news@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- news@beehaw.org
What’s America’s view on this Tucker Carlson?
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
“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.
Does Putin realize it? Yes.
Does Putin want the people who watch Tucker to realize it? No.
Yeah right, NATO commands far more nuclear warheads than Russia! They’d definitely loose in a thermonuclear exchange!
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.
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
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.
Ask Libya and Ukraine how that worked out
Sorry… do you think Libya with nuclear weapons under Gaddafi would have been a good idea?
Gaddafi would still be alive. Dictators now need nuclear weapons to assure survival. Look for the world to get real crazy real fast.
There are 57 dictatorships in the world. Almost none of them have nuclear weapons.
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.
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.
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.
I’d argue Carlson also didn’t manage to interview him, apparently Putin just rambled along without answering any questions.
He did his best to show what an idiot Tucker was though, which is fun:
At another juncture, Carlson asked Putin if he saw God’s design in world political affairs. With a bored look that seemed to imply he was talking to someone with a below average IQ, Putin merely said “no” before explaining that international laws governed world events, not a deity.
https://gizmodo.com/tucker-carlson-x-elon-musk-vladimir-putin-russia-interv-1851244271
(Sorry for all the Twitter embeds in that link.)
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.
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.
That actually existed until Reagan repealed it. That paved the way for Rush Limbaugh and the rest snowballed.
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’.
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”
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.
In general, IMO this is getting way more press than it deserves.
Yeah, a lot of it is outrage bait. That is basically how Trump got elected, outrage -> coverage, coverage->legitimacy.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, state run media never has propaganda. Glory to the Supreme Leader!
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.
Yes, Norway, the richest country of the world per capita, a very relatable and reproducible system.
The article says absolutely nothing about what Putin said
