Nostr

Ok, I saw a lot of cope from the MSM about the Putin interview yesterday. That was expected. Not a single media outlet has engaged with the statements in terms of content or even provided counterarguments. Instead, they have attacked his reputation in their usual manner.

But how brain damaged must one be to bring this headline?

By doing so, they not only confirm his point that the Western MSM are an unbeatable propaganda machine, but it's also the most incorrect conclusion one could draw from this interview. He consistently stated the opposite. How illogical and absurd such a conclusion (expansionist tendencies) would be. And he has actually consistently signaled open doors in all matters. Be it fake or not. At least, that's what he said. No threats whatsoever.

zebra 1y ago

I like your posts because you often says about criticism.

I agree that this headline looks ... inadequate. It doesn't reflect this interview.

But this your posts also inadequately picture putin. looks he is all about peace and quiet. Why he invaded independant country if he wants peace in the first place?

Second - I spent last two days giving "counterarguments". I found lies and illogic in putins words. I gave specific timestamps when he said them and arguments. (I can repeat them to you if you want)

And you know what? No one needs precise arguments and logic. No one needs counterarguments. People talks raw emotions and thats it.

BTW I don't like your too "general" conclusion about all media. Somehow I'm sure there are headlines that portray Putin as a peacemaker as inadequate as this headline.

Its not about "propaganda machine" its just people like fastfood. and don't like thinking. And journalist also those people, and probably they know that if they invite professional historian who will comment putins "historical" bullshit at the beginning interview no one will understand and appreciate.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

alp 1y ago

I believe there is a misunderstanding here. I am not on President. Putin's side. I am far too uninformed to understand his arguments or geopolitics in general. I only understand two things: He has presented his reasons, and the media (really all the typical ones I have seen) are attacking the reporter's reputation.

Engaging with President Putin's arguments could potentially start a dialogue. But as he says, this has been categorically prohibited.

So, as I said, I'm not taking sides here. I'm simply criticizing the emotional envy-driven reaction of the mainstream media to this interview.

zebra 1y ago

I see your point. agree.

> Engaging with President Putin's arguments could potentially start a dialogue. But as he says, this has been categorically prohibited.

There is a post from BBC (not sure) journalist who says that they sending daily request to interview Putin but he refuses.

alp 1y ago

Seems like, he's been waiting for the right unbiased reporter. I don't know ...

zebra 1y ago

unbiased is a funny term for Tucker )

can't say I agree. Putin is a person who used to talk with domestic journalists who only ask authorized questions. if you were more familiar with the situation you'd realize that Tucker didn't ask any tough questions, and didn't rise any uncomfortable topics. Except maybe the gas pipe

alp 1y ago

His interview questions were rather unsuggestive, quite unlike what CNN or BBC typically present. It's true that he has a specific political orientation privately, which is evident to everyone. However, intellectually, he seemed to struggle to keep up, in my impression.

zebra 1y ago

> However, intellectually, he seemed to struggle to keep up

I prefer to think that Tucker was surprised because interview went not how he expected.

to give you an example of Putin's intelligence - in interview Putin said that Zelensky father was WWII soldier. Zelensky father was born 1947.

I can give you more examples )