I know that Guno started a thread based on an NPR article of Tucker Carlson's interview with Putin. It's here for those who'd like to see it:
Tucker Carlson, the fired Fox News star, makes bid for relevance with Putin interview | justplainpolitics.com
The title alone makes it clear that the author of the article doesn't exactly hold a high view of Tucker. I read the first dozen paragraphs of his article, and he does nothing to dissuade this impression. He also makes it clear in those initial paragraphs that he doesn't trust things Putin said in the interview as well. So if people would like to read an article from an author that dislikes and/or distrusts both Tucker and Putin, that's probably the article for you.
Cynthia Chung's article is much different. It's clear that she's not always a fan of Tucker's reasoning, but I think she also makes it clear that she thinks it's a good thing that Tucker decided to do the interview. And she praises Putin for refusing to simply give sound bite answers to questions which are quite complex. She also does a lot to further elaborate on the meaning of Putin's statements. Below is the first dozen paragraphs from Cynthia's article. Constructive comments are always welcome.
**
On President Putin's Interview with Tucker Carlson...
CYNTHIA CHUNG
FEB 10, 2024
Something somewhat historical happened just two days ago, though it is unclear how many Americans will understand its significance...
Tucker Carlson traveled to Moscow for a 2 hour, unedited, unfiltered, interview with President Putin.
This is already unprecedented.
It is unprecedented in that several million Americans will be actually listening to President Putin expressing his thoughts (not to mention several millions more of the western world).
Let us be honest with ourselves here, most Americans have not actually heard President Putin speak a full thought. Rather the internet is bombarded with diluted and villainized impressions - with no shortage of unflattering photos taken of him in mid-speech like this is to serve as some sort of replacement for actually listening to what he has to say.
The majority of Americans have a bit of a bad habit of desiring to make quick judgements and impressions of things without taking too much time to understand what it is they are looking at. The whole world looks at Americans this way, as a fast consumerist society that treats its politics not too differently from its fast food choices. If Americans do not like this characterization of themselves, then the best way to counteract this is to actually have the attention span to watch this interview and engage in a serious discussion about it. Since what President Putin thinks, whether Americans like it or not, clearly also affects the welfare of American lives at this point, let alone the economy of the United States.
Vladimir Putin has been the president of Russia for 19+ years. (From December 31, 1999-May 7, 2000. From May 7, 2000- May 7, 2008. And from May 7, 2012 until the present.) FYI he was Prime Minister of Russia for four years from 2008-2012. Thus, it is a little ridiculous that most Americans in fact know very little about how President Putin actually thinks, and what his intentions are for Russia and her relationship to the rest of the world, when he in fact frequently goes out of his way to make his thoughts as clear as possible with numerous speeches, that are translated and transcribed into English, such as the yearly Valdai Conferences, where he is known to spend hours answering questions from the Russian public and even questions from abroad.
In fact, it was quite something to hear a leader of a country speak about his interactions with several Presidents of America, which had crossed over five U.S. Presidents (Bill Clinton, George Bush Jr., Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden) and covers a period of eight U.S. presidential terms. This should already give people in the room the feeling of being in the presence of someone who has a wealth of experience.
And it is no surprise that there is now a blitzkrieg of quickie news reports intended for those who have not yet watched this 2 hour discussion and in a swarm of panic are clearly meant as a desperate deterrence, warning Americans to “not even waste your time” on listening to the “barbarian” attempting to share his perspective with the “civilized” western world. “Nothing to see here folks, really!” Anything he says are just a bunch of lies…right?
The fact that President Putin started the interview asking Tucker “Are we having a talk show or a serious conversation?” was a clear setting of the tone so to speak. It was a clear intervention on the typical manner that American news reporting occurs, which are in 2-5 min sound bites. Part of the reason why this is counter-productive to real understanding is due to the simple fact that history cannot be explained in 2-5 min sound bites. Hundreds of books are written on these subjects but we can’t hear the president of Russia say a few paragraphs?
And the other reason why it is counter-productive is because it can be used to frequently change the subject which dissuades the audience from sitting and reflecting on a thought. In fact President Putin on several occasions, despite talking several minutes to answer a question, would often respond to Tucker, after his interruption with another question on a completely different subject, that he was not yet done answering the question.
This method of discussion is not President Putin being “tyrannical” or “not used to being questioned about his reasons for doing things,” it is in fact the manner in which a truly civilized person responsibly discusses subjects that will affect the lives of billions of people on this planet. Why would we think that such large questions deserve such small answers in the first place?
**
Full article:
On President Putin's Interview with Tucker Carlson... | Cynthia Chung
Tucker Carlson, the fired Fox News star, makes bid for relevance with Putin interview | justplainpolitics.com
The title alone makes it clear that the author of the article doesn't exactly hold a high view of Tucker. I read the first dozen paragraphs of his article, and he does nothing to dissuade this impression. He also makes it clear in those initial paragraphs that he doesn't trust things Putin said in the interview as well. So if people would like to read an article from an author that dislikes and/or distrusts both Tucker and Putin, that's probably the article for you.
Cynthia Chung's article is much different. It's clear that she's not always a fan of Tucker's reasoning, but I think she also makes it clear that she thinks it's a good thing that Tucker decided to do the interview. And she praises Putin for refusing to simply give sound bite answers to questions which are quite complex. She also does a lot to further elaborate on the meaning of Putin's statements. Below is the first dozen paragraphs from Cynthia's article. Constructive comments are always welcome.
**
On President Putin's Interview with Tucker Carlson...
CYNTHIA CHUNG
FEB 10, 2024
Something somewhat historical happened just two days ago, though it is unclear how many Americans will understand its significance...
Tucker Carlson traveled to Moscow for a 2 hour, unedited, unfiltered, interview with President Putin.
This is already unprecedented.
It is unprecedented in that several million Americans will be actually listening to President Putin expressing his thoughts (not to mention several millions more of the western world).
Let us be honest with ourselves here, most Americans have not actually heard President Putin speak a full thought. Rather the internet is bombarded with diluted and villainized impressions - with no shortage of unflattering photos taken of him in mid-speech like this is to serve as some sort of replacement for actually listening to what he has to say.
The majority of Americans have a bit of a bad habit of desiring to make quick judgements and impressions of things without taking too much time to understand what it is they are looking at. The whole world looks at Americans this way, as a fast consumerist society that treats its politics not too differently from its fast food choices. If Americans do not like this characterization of themselves, then the best way to counteract this is to actually have the attention span to watch this interview and engage in a serious discussion about it. Since what President Putin thinks, whether Americans like it or not, clearly also affects the welfare of American lives at this point, let alone the economy of the United States.
Vladimir Putin has been the president of Russia for 19+ years. (From December 31, 1999-May 7, 2000. From May 7, 2000- May 7, 2008. And from May 7, 2012 until the present.) FYI he was Prime Minister of Russia for four years from 2008-2012. Thus, it is a little ridiculous that most Americans in fact know very little about how President Putin actually thinks, and what his intentions are for Russia and her relationship to the rest of the world, when he in fact frequently goes out of his way to make his thoughts as clear as possible with numerous speeches, that are translated and transcribed into English, such as the yearly Valdai Conferences, where he is known to spend hours answering questions from the Russian public and even questions from abroad.
In fact, it was quite something to hear a leader of a country speak about his interactions with several Presidents of America, which had crossed over five U.S. Presidents (Bill Clinton, George Bush Jr., Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden) and covers a period of eight U.S. presidential terms. This should already give people in the room the feeling of being in the presence of someone who has a wealth of experience.
And it is no surprise that there is now a blitzkrieg of quickie news reports intended for those who have not yet watched this 2 hour discussion and in a swarm of panic are clearly meant as a desperate deterrence, warning Americans to “not even waste your time” on listening to the “barbarian” attempting to share his perspective with the “civilized” western world. “Nothing to see here folks, really!” Anything he says are just a bunch of lies…right?
The fact that President Putin started the interview asking Tucker “Are we having a talk show or a serious conversation?” was a clear setting of the tone so to speak. It was a clear intervention on the typical manner that American news reporting occurs, which are in 2-5 min sound bites. Part of the reason why this is counter-productive to real understanding is due to the simple fact that history cannot be explained in 2-5 min sound bites. Hundreds of books are written on these subjects but we can’t hear the president of Russia say a few paragraphs?
And the other reason why it is counter-productive is because it can be used to frequently change the subject which dissuades the audience from sitting and reflecting on a thought. In fact President Putin on several occasions, despite talking several minutes to answer a question, would often respond to Tucker, after his interruption with another question on a completely different subject, that he was not yet done answering the question.
This method of discussion is not President Putin being “tyrannical” or “not used to being questioned about his reasons for doing things,” it is in fact the manner in which a truly civilized person responsibly discusses subjects that will affect the lives of billions of people on this planet. Why would we think that such large questions deserve such small answers in the first place?
**
Full article:
On President Putin's Interview with Tucker Carlson... | Cynthia Chung
Last edited:
