In the very beginning of this interview Tucker reveals how the government monitored his private texts and emails.
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1757117841151557943
Interesting interview.
Some things we all know:
The world is a far more complicated place than the Media can generally comprehend, and thus, they cannot present an accurate image of it to us in their few moments of summary.
Such summary, however, is often filtered through individual or institutional bias, and that limited view distorted by the funhouse mirrors of editors, Boards of Directors, advertisers, and even the bias of the target audience, which must hear confirming viewpoints for its biases or it will be selecting another source for its information.
Audience dogma and demagoguery count, and there is a feedback loop in subscriptions and ratings which encourages the reinforcement of that bias by the media, which sets its filters to deliver what wants to be heard by the target audience, until the filters at the top of this top-down distribution will actively censor or just omit anything which conflicts with the accepted orthodoxy of the Narrative. That bias may even reach the point that demagoguery substitutes for reporting or editorial opinion, and the output reverts to unabashed propaganda.
We have seen this develop on both ends of the political spectrum, and not so much in the middle, because few are as dogmatically neutral as Switzerland or Sweden, at least one of which appears to be suffering the consequences of their social choices of late.
The other has money. Everyone's money.
In this day and age that forms a fortress far stronger than moral neutrality.
Now, some have had some sort of harsh anaphylactic reaction to Tucker Carlson interviewing Putin. I take issue because Tucker is doing his job as he sees it, that of providing information to those who will tune in and watch. Sure, any interview is colored by the questions answered, and some interviews and interviewers take on the ambiance of late night 'infomercials', selling a product more than informing the viewer. Such has been numerous interviews of political figures here at home, and when the answers provided did not fill the bill for the interviewer and their patronage, careful editing could produce results that would vary widely from what went on tape. After all, that editing can make someone look like a genius or a slackjawed twit, and both have been done in the last two decades.
But how else, and what better way to understand at least some of where Putin (or anyone else) is coming from, than to ask him?
Don't put any more spin or filter on it than the interviewee demands, or places, himself. That alone speaks volumes.
Let him/her/(it?) talk.
Give that person the floor, and permit them to expound on the state of the world and their own nation, presuming at least they are expert on their view of the latter, and how they perceive their country's interaction with others.
How else to understand, even if through the initial filters and bias of the person themself, what, why, how, they see the world and their part of/in it?
I have always been a fan of primary sources.
Unlike Biden, Putin seems articulate and perfectly capable of telling us what he thinks, without the filters, the fun house mirrors of strings of commentators, each expounding on second and third derivatives of translations of the original source.
Good on Tucker!
I look forward to more interviews of people not often interviewed by folks from the West, and the look at the unvarnished grain of the opinions and beliefs of leaders and influential people in the world today. This is what journalism should be. Provide the facts, at least as the primary sources see them, and let us make up our own minds.
It is pretty obvious to the student of the last couple of decades, that Russian acquisitions of territory in Georgia, Crimea, and this latest attempt to take the Ukraine, and the Black Sea Coast as far as Odessa (at least) that the eventual end game is control of access to ports on the Black Sea: all of them, and not just the farms, mines, mills, and oilfields of Ukraine. Control the water, control the land, as anything traded from the interior will at some point be moved by ship. Once seafaring countries become landlocked, their economies can be controlled, and ultimately, their politics and populations as well.
