I don’t think it’s right to be mad at Tucker for doing the interview. Only listening to one side of a story is far worse than listening to both, even if you assume everything the other side says is all lies. If you only listen to one side, you are granting *that side* permission to lie to you at will. I watched the interview under the assumption everything Putin was going to say was manipulative, and I came away believing the same but with a better understanding of how he thinks.
Discussion
In many instances I would agree on principle, and I respect wanting to understand what makes the guy tick.
If I believed Carlson was doing this interview for some humanitarian motive, to “shed light” on why a nuclear power has attempted to obliterate its neighbor, I might go in with a different mindset.
But Putin doesn’t need this platform to promote his angle. He’s not saying anything new. And Carlson’s general viewer/listener-base is prone to side with the contrarian viewpoint as a general rule.
In my (skeptically interrogated, bitcoiner-philosophy) opinion, Carlson isn’t acting on deep principles of journalistic integrity.
It seems to me that, as usual, he’s taking advantage of a situation rife with conflict, fear, and uncertainty, to expand his reach and shill his brand