Tucker Carlson Goes to Moscow?

[KhunLA]

2 hours ago, bendejo said:

 

Or as Hannity said of himself "I never said I was a journalist."

It looks like that would be true of the whole Fox prime time lineup.

 

Few to none of the anchors, celeb 'news/op ed' commentators are journalist.  they have a team of researcher that do the investigating or enough credit to their name, that people will offer the info on stories to investigate.  

 

Why whistleblowers are heroes   Although good journalist/celeb mouth pieces will verify the info.  Unlike the MSM echo box, and simply read the propaganda they are given.

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Few to none of the anchors, celeb 'news/op ed' commentators are journalist.  they have a team of researcher that do the investigating or enough credit to their name, that people will offer the info on stories to investigate.  

 

Why whistleblowers are heroes   Although good journalist/celeb mouth pieces will verify the info.  Unlike the MSM echo box, and simply read the propaganda they are given.

I agree with everything you said until you made the "MSM echo box " comment  . 

  Every news agency is an "echo box" to a certain degree,

 They are  for profit organisation and  cater to their client base, not unlike every other business. 

  The only thing that is arguable is the degree in which they are "Echo Chambers"  

I just finished scanning the headlines of every news organisation on Google News.  Most headlines  . unless you are a voyeur,or have a particular interest, provide all the information I need. But if I need more information on that particular news story,, on the bottom right corner of the news subject, there is a "Full story" button.  this expands the story  coverage pf most news outlets,,

Being the cheap bastard that I am, I look for a source that is not behind a paywall. 

[placeholder]

15 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Would you say the same if a journalist interviews President Xi of China, or Kim in North Korea, or Khameni of Iran?   I think not.

 

This is all just an offshoot of anti-Trump derangement and hysteria, with a healthy dose of the debunked Russian conspiracy from 2016 thrown in. 

What kind of journalist is it who is actually more pro-Putin than Putin's own people?

"Carlson, the conservative former Fox News host with a history of airing bogus “news,” claimed — falsely — that prominent U.S. newspapers and television outlets had refused to interview Putin since his invasion of Ukraine and were ignoring Russia’s perspective...

“Mr. Carlson is wrong,” Peskov said during his daily briefing for reporters. “We receive many requests for interviews with the president.”

https://archive.ph/EDwVt#selection-1051.0-1051.138

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/07/tucker-carlson-putin-russia-ukraine/

 

Just to clarify: Dmitry Peskov is the Kremlin's spokesperson.

Edited February 8 by placeholder

[248900_1469958220]

Very much looking forward to this interview....Very much enjoying the lefts implosion over it.....Great move by Carlson. A Trump/ Biden debate would also be great viewing.....2024 is getting interesting. 

[ozimoron]

In a country where it's against the law to report honestly about the war, this is not journalism. It's propaganda. This is an application for VP.

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/journalists-fume-tucker-carlson-vladmir-putin-interview-russia/

 

 

 

Edited February 8 by ozimoron

[retarius]

14 hours ago, rabas said:

 

So, you just listen to the 'true' side? 

 

I'm still waiting for you to reveal your special sources on Russia. Odd that you accuse others, whom you don't know, of listening to propaganda yet you won't reveal your own sources.  They say the make of a man is in how he views others.

 

No I don't hate Tucker. I do read newspapers I do not like, for example Huffpost. They give great insights into the minds of today's 'progressive' people (I can't say left wing because Marx never commented on the rights of transgender people or supported identity politics). I will tell you my sources of publications I ready regularly.....Cradle, All Jazeera, Haaretz, CNN, BBC, Guardian, Independent, Bangkok Post, RT, Sputnik, Ukrainska Pravda, Kiev Independent, ET, NHK, Japan News, US and Thai PBS, Information Clearing house, Global Times, The Hill, Daly Mail, Off Guardian, Grayzone, Palestinian News, X, ZH....and some others. Obviously there is an an anti-establishment bias and I don't read every article, I scan the headlines and pick what I am interested in. My key issues are wars, oppression and politics. 

[retarius]

30 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What kind of journalist is it who is actually more pro-Putin than Putin's own people?

"Carlson, the conservative former Fox News host with a history of airing bogus “news,” claimed — falsely — that prominent U.S. newspapers and television outlets had refused to interview Putin since his invasion of Ukraine and were ignoring Russia’s perspective...

“Mr. Carlson is wrong,” Peskov said during his daily briefing for reporters. “We receive many requests for interviews with the president.”

https://archive.ph/EDwVt#selection-1051.0-1051.138

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/07/tucker-carlson-putin-russia-ukraine/

 

Just to clarify: Dmitry Peskov is the Kremlin's spokesperson.

Placeholder, you are a 'poll' man. Putin's approval ratings in Russia are way higher than any western politician in his own country.....and not by any small margin. I'm not sure Tucker is anyone who could be called as 'having a history of airing bogus news' which sounds suspiciously like a an unacknowledged  moniker from some article in the Guardian.

[impulse]

6 minutes ago, retarius said:

No I don't hate Tucker. I do read newspapers I do not like, for example Huffpost. They give great insights into the minds of today's 'progressive' people (I can't say left wing because Marx never commented on the rights of transgender people or supported identity politics). I will tell you my sources of publications I ready regularly.....Cradle, All Jazeera, Haaretz, CNN, BBC, Guardian, Independent, Bangkok Post, RT, Sputnik, Ukrainska Pravda, Kiev Independent, ET, NHK, Japan News, US and Thai PBS, Information Clearing house, Global Times, The Hill, Daly Mail, Off Guardian, Grayzone, Palestinian News, X, ZH....and some others. Obviously there is an an anti-establishment bias and I don't read every article, I scan the headlines and pick what I am interested in. My key issues are wars, oppression and politics. 

 

Give it up, man.  You're getting muddy and they're enjoying it.

 

[retarius]

13 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

In a country where it's against the law to report honestly about the war, this is not journalism. It's propaganda. This is an application for VP.

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/journalists-fume-tucker-carlson-vladmir-putin-interview-russia/

 

 

 

Empty sloganeering. The west is telling lies and has been to buy knowledge/belief since the Iraq war and probably since before then. Tucker is going trying to expose the vile undersides of American policies and politics. It's pretty simple really. If you don't think people should be able to listen to what Putin actually says instead of reading distorted summaries for biased western papers, then that's ok. 

[retarius]

Just now, impulse said:

 

Give it up, man.  You're getting muddy and they're enjoying it.

 

No I don't mind answering questions...I don't know what 'getting muddy' means.....please clarify.

There's none so blind as those that cannot see, my mother used to say, and my purpose in life is to try to bring some light to the blind and narrow minded. 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, retarius said:

Empty sloganeering. The west is telling lies and has been to buy knowledge/belief since the Iraq war and probably since before then. Tucker is going trying to expose the vile undersides of American policies and politics. It's pretty simple really. If you don't think people should be able to listen to what Putin actually says instead of reading distorted summaries for biased western papers, then that's ok. 

 

Most news outlets ask Putin for an interview every single day without success. This claim by Carlson that he's the only one to stand up for the truth is pure propaganda.

[impulse]

1 minute ago, retarius said:

No I don't mind answering questions...I don't know what 'getting muddy' means.....please clarify.

 

Google "Why you shouldn't wrestle with a pig"

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Most news outlets ask Putin for an interview every single day without success. This claim by Carlson that he's the only one to stand up for the truth is pure propaganda.

As I pointed out in my post above, even the Kremlin's spokesman said that Carlson's claim was false.

[placeholder]

17 minutes ago, retarius said:

Placeholder, you are a 'poll' man. Putin's approval ratings in Russia are way higher than any western politician in his own country.....and not by any small margin. I'm not sure Tucker is anyone who could be called as 'having a history of airing bogus news' which sounds suspiciously like a an unacknowledged  moniker from some article in the Guardian.

I'm not going to fall for your deflection in gauging Pupin's popularity.

And he was fired by Fox News for knowingly promoting falsehoods. His attorneys' successful defense of him in a court case was based on the fact that, given his history, no one should expect that what Carlson says is truthful.

And of course, you fail to address the main point: Carlson falsely claimed that no other western media had attempted to interview Putin. The Kremlin's own spokesperson said that this was false. That's another falsehood to add to his dismal record.

Edited February 8 by placeholder

[Hanaguma]

53 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What kind of journalist is it who is actually more pro-Putin than Putin's own people?

"Carlson, the conservative former Fox News host with a history of airing bogus “news,” claimed — falsely — that prominent U.S. newspapers and television outlets had refused to interview Putin since his invasion of Ukraine and were ignoring Russia’s perspective...

“Mr. Carlson is wrong,” Peskov said during his daily briefing for reporters. “We receive many requests for interviews with the president.”

https://archive.ph/EDwVt#selection-1051.0-1051.138

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/07/tucker-carlson-putin-russia-ukraine/

 

Just to clarify: Dmitry Peskov is the Kremlin's spokesperson.

It doesn't matter. Impartiality in journalism is sadly largely a thing of the past. The line between jounalism and punditry is basically erased.  To be perfectly honest, I never thought Tucker was a really good interviewer anyway. He is a far better writer than he is on camera, but that's just me. 

So again, how is interviewing Putin (no friend of freedom or the USA) any different from interviewing Xi or Kim or Khameni?  

[placeholder]

Just now, Hanaguma said:

It doesn't matter. Impartiality in journalism is sadly largely a thing of the past. The line between jounalism and punditry is basically erased.  To be perfectly honest, I never thought Tucker was a really good interviewer anyway. He is a far better writer than he is on camera, but that's just me. 

So again, how is interviewing Putin (no friend of freedom or the USA) any different from interviewing Xi or Kim or Khameni?  

It would be no different if the interviewer was an over-the-top fan of said parties.

[KhunLA]

Plenty of interviews & speeches with Putin, just not on MSM, or making the evening news in USA & other countries where the media is controlled.   Fear of disrupting the bias one sided spin of evil RU & Putin.

 

People need to search for info, not wait to be spoon fed by media (MSM) conglomerates.   But that would take intelligence 

Edited February 8 by KhunLA

[Robert Paulson]

9 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

It doesn't matter. Impartiality in journalism is sadly largely a thing of the past. The line between jounalism and punditry is basically erased.  To be perfectly honest, I never thought Tucker was a really good interviewer anyway. He is a far better writer than he is on camera, but that's just me. 

So again, how is interviewing Putin (no friend of freedom or the USA) any different from interviewing Xi or Kim or Khameni?  

Meghan Kelly interviewed him. So it’s not even unprecedented.

 

This doesn’t seem that difficult people: if you don’t like it, don’t tune in… but what you can’t do is decide for others what they should and should not see. Also, if Putin is such a vile piece of crap, why not just let his own words sink him? I don’t get it. Nothing you say makes sense. The solution to our problems is more talking, not choosing who you sensor based on your own ideology. As to your question: I don’t care who interviews who. Anyone can interview anyone they want. And to see it any other way seems quite ignorant to me.m

Edited February 8 by Robert Paulson

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Plenty of interviews & speeches with Putin, just not on MSM, or making the evening news in USA & other countries where the media is controlled.   Fear of disrupting the bias one sided spin of evil RU & Putin.

 

People need to search for info, not wait to be spoon fed by media (MSM) conglomerates.   But that would take intelligence 

 

He's not evil? Those weren't war crimes?

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

What kind of journalist is it who is actually more pro-Putin than Putin's own people?

"Carlson, the conservative former Fox News host with a history of airing bogus “news,” claimed — falsely — that prominent U.S. newspapers and television outlets had refused to interview Putin since his invasion of Ukraine and were ignoring Russia’s perspective...

“Mr. Carlson is wrong,” Peskov said during his daily briefing for reporters. “We receive many requests for interviews with the president.”

https://archive.ph/EDwVt#selection-1051.0-1051.138

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/07/tucker-carlson-putin-russia-ukraine/

 

Just to clarify: Dmitry Peskov is the Kremlin's spokesperson.

Carlson and Putin belong together. 

 

 

 

Edited February 8 by Jingthing

[Hanaguma]

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

It would be no different if the interviewer was an over-the-top fan of said parties.

Which, of course, he is not.

 

But what IS true is that the issue of Russia is becoming a political proxy in the US.  Tucker was no fan of the Bidens, and therefore of Ukraine either. Hence appearing softer on Russia and earning accusations like yours.  Democrats are anti Russia due to the conspiracy hoax in 2016 and see Russia and Trump as cojoined at the hip. It has become a joke really.

[retarius]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I'm not going to fall for your deflection in gauging Pupin's popularity.

And he was fired by Fox News for knowingly promoting falsehoods. His attorneys' successful defense of him in a court case was based on the fact that, given his history, no one should expect that what Carlson says is truthful.

And of course, you fail to address the main point: Carlson falsely claimed that no other western media had attempted to interview Putin. The Kremlin's own spokesperson said that this was false. That's another falsehood to add to his dismal record.

As I say, there's no so blind as those who will not see. It is not deflection, I have seen you posting on the results of posts (insightful comments) and assumed you had some special expertise in this area. I was responding to your comment about Putin's popularity in Russia as shown below.

 

32 minutes ago, retarius said:

What kind of journalist is it who is actually more pro-Putin than Putin's own people?

Tucker was fired for over-reaching and being too provocative for Fox. History will show that the White House or a proxy demanded this. 

Can you cite the reference for Tucker's attorney's claims in his "successful" defence? I remember a lawsuit after his dismissal, but do not recall anything about the claims and counter claims in the suit or what the definitive argument that vindicated Tucker. US courts verdicts are often bizarre but as for being responsible for success in a lawsuit in the US, I have to say, I think it is unusual grounds. Essentially you are saying that Tucker lies so much and so the court should give a large monetary award to Tucker because Fox should have been aware of his lying? Not knowing the case I would tend to think that Fox may have made the claim that he was lying about something which is ironical to say the least. I find this a bit difficult to swallow. 

 

[Robert Paulson]

The fact is, Putin is probably going to mention the Minsk agreements and continued bombing of the Donbas as reasons for the Ukraine war. And guess what. THOSE ARE THE REASONS FOR THE WAR. And yes, it would do the American public a ton of good to know that.
 

The United States government also ousted a democratically elected Ukrainian president in 2014 (so much for the “fighting for democracy” line). Putin may bring that up as well. Propaganda? No! It’s the truth. But we will see what he says, right? My only point is maybe, just perhaps, this interview will wake some people up to the truths of the Ukraine conflict. 

Edited February 8 by Robert Paulson

[Robert Paulson]

The other part that makes me chuckle is there is nothing but propaganda on the United States news everyday. Now all the sudden folks are concerned about the most propagandized people on the planet being propagandized. You just cannot make it up 😆

[herfiehandbag]

On 2/5/2024 at 11:35 AM, Berkshire said:

"provide the Russian president a platform to address a wider Western audience."

Translation:  "It will provide the Russian president a platform to lie his a*s off to a wider Western audience." 

Tucker Carlson involved in propagating a lie, surely not!

Edited February 8 by herfiehandbag

[placeholder]

21 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Which, of course, he is not.

 

But what IS true is that the issue of Russia is becoming a political proxy in the US.  Tucker was no fan of the Bidens, and therefore of Ukraine either. Hence appearing softer on Russia and earning accusations like yours.  Democrats are anti Russia due to the conspiracy hoax in 2016 and see Russia and Trump as cojoined at the hip. It has become a joke really.

Please share with me some remarks from Carlson about Putin that are negative. I did a search and couldn't find any. Once again, Tucker Carlson is an over-the-top fan of Vladimir Putin.

And I'm not going to fall for your other comments which are just an attempt to deflect from the point I raised.

[bendejo]

Well, when all is said and done, this whole media event means nothing.  Consider this Tucker's Al Capone's Vault event.  Media made a big whoop-dee-doo about it back then. 

 

 

[Hanaguma]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Please share with me some remarks from Carlson about Putin that are negative. I did a search and couldn't find any. Once again, Tucker Carlson is an over-the-top fan of Vladimir Putin.

And I'm not going to fall for your other comments which are just an attempt to deflect from the point I raised.

Not being negative and being an over-the-top fan are different. You made the claim, please feel free to back it up. 

 

China is by far the bigger concern to the US, yet paranoia over Russia sucks the air out of the room. The only reason I can think of is the interference of domestic politics in the US. 

[placeholder]

24 minutes ago, retarius said:

As I say, there's no so blind as those who will not see. It is not deflection, I have seen you posting on the results of posts (insightful comments) and assumed you had some special expertise in this area. I was responding to your comment about Putin's popularity in Russia as shown below.

 

Tucker was fired for over-reaching and being too provocative for Fox. History will show that the White House or a proxy demanded this. 

Can you cite the reference for Tucker's attorney's claims in his "successful" defence? I remember a lawsuit after his dismissal, but do not recall anything about the claims and counter claims in the suit or what the definitive argument that vindicated Tucker. US courts verdicts are often bizarre but as for being responsible for success in a lawsuit in the US, I have to say, I think it is unusual grounds. Essentially you are saying that Tucker lies so much and so the court should give a large monetary award to Tucker because Fox should have been aware of his lying? Not knowing the case I would tend to think that Fox may have made the claim that he was lying about something which is ironical to say the least. I find this a bit difficult to swallow. 

 

History may show it, but you haven't. Please spare us your visions of the future.

Actually, if my comment about "Putin's own people" referred to the people of Russia rather than his own staff - that would make it even worse. Once again, Putin's own spokesperson said Carlson's claim about western media was false.

As for the lawsuit in question, it wasn't about the election.

 

Tucker Carlson Successfully Argues Nobody Really Believes Tucker Carlson Is Reporting Facts

When Tucker Carlson says on his show “[r]emember the facts of the story; these are undisputed" no reasonable person would believe that he was about to state facts. At least, that was Tucker Carlson's own argument in defending himself from a libel suit.

That argument convinced U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, who dismissed a lawsuit brought by model and actress Karen McDougal. McDougal sued for defamation, alleging Carlson baselessly told his audience she was extorting the President. President Trump allegedly paid $150,000 to help keep quiet a year-long affair with the former Playboy model.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/greedy-associates/tucker-carlson-successfully-argues-nobody-really-believes-tucker-carlson-is-reporting-facts/

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, retarius said:

Placeholder, you are a 'poll' man. Putin's approval ratings in Russia are way higher than any western politician in his own country.....and not by any small margin. I'm not sure Tucker is anyone who could be called as 'having a history of airing bogus news' which sounds suspiciously like a an unacknowledged  moniker from some article in the Guardian.

Russian polls, LOL.