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

  • Candelestine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    11 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
      7
      ·
      11 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.

    • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      He has just posted a video of him receiving gifts from the enemy, and he is giving aid to the enemy. This is not speech, this is an attack on America’s interests.

      It’s one thing to campaign in the US and say “I like it when Putin genocides Ukrainians”, but it’s another thing to be paid by a country that we’re indirectly at war with, and provide publishing and broadcasting services to their president, a man who is on the US Sanction list. The illegal thing here is not the speech, it’s the business transaction.

      Subpoena Tucker’s emails and phone and prosecute for illegal business transactions.

  • sleepmode@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 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.

    • Crack0n7uesday@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Poland is a NATO member so I don’t think Russia is going to try anything there, at least officially. They might trigger some proxy war or internal political strife and claim to step in on a peace keeping mission though.

      • Skua@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 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
          ·
          11 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.

    • ralphio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      11 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.

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

        There are three on going investigations, well two after the Swedish cancelled theirs. He doesn’t need to do much on that

      • bedrooms@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 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.

  • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 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
      ·
      10 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
        ·
        10 months ago

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

  • DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 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.

  • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    11 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
      14
      ·
      11 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
        13
        ·
        11 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
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      11 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.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    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.

    Carlson’s claim also ignored the fact that Russia’s president has spent the past two decades in power systematically stamping out free speech at home.

    He talked about a Russian “patriot” who had “eliminated a bandit” in a European capital, seeming to confirm previous reports that Russia is demanding a prisoner swap with Vadim Krasikov.

    It’s all part of how Putin justified his full-scale invasion, almost two years ago - along with “de-Nazifying” Ukraine, which he claimed is still a work in progress.

    “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.

    The American did not push Putin at all on political repression at home, which includes locking up vocal opponents of the war in jail.


    The original article contains 999 words, the summary contains 160 words. Saved 84%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • Crack0n7uesday@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    11 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”.