[I got a bot to automatically delete all my comments over 1 month old so you can’t see this comment anymore]
Removed by mod
In authoritarian bad country, professional bowtie journalists spread racist hatred to cause dissent among the impoverished for the sake of the elite ruling class, but they are forbidden from speaking to foreign enemies
like i don’t give a shit about tuck but in what reality is simply talking to the “enemy” some kind of punishable offense. y’all supposed to be all about free press, are they not free to speak to bad people?
When Russia has repeatedly denied requests from other journalists in the past, I don’t think that you can really associate Carlson with being “free press”. This is a business deal, not journalism. How should we treat people who engage in business deals with sanctioned individuals?
“Does Tucker really think we journalists haven’t been trying to interview President Putin every day since his full-scale invasion of Ukraine? It’s absurd – we’ll continue to ask for an interview, just as we have for years now,” said CNN’s Christiane Amanpour.
The BBC’s Russia editor, Steve Rosenberg, wrote on X: “Interesting to hear @TuckerCarlson claim that ‘no western journalist has bothered to interview’ Putin since the invasion of Ukraine. We’ve lodged several requests with the Kremlin in the last 18 months. Always a ‘no’ for us.”
Yevgenia Albats, a Russian journalist and author of a book about the KGB, described Mr Carlson’s claim as “unbelievable”.
“I am like hundreds of Russian journalists who have had to go into exile to keep reporting about the Kremlin’s war against Ukraine. The alternative was to go to jail. And now this SoB is teaching us about good journalism, shooting from the $1,000 Ritz suite in Moscow,” she wrote on X.
“Press” has always been a business. This isn’t the dunk you think it is. They have always dealt with and interviewed sanctioned individuals. Some even interview prisoners! Imagine, interviewing not just somebody accused of breaking the law, but somebody convicted of it, like Mandela! What should we do with those journalists? According to some people on this thread:
Putin is as far as one can get from Mandela.
Removed by mod
I have followed ‘news’ from Russian outlets such as RT and Sputnik, being recast as Right wing talking points within hours. This is not just recent, it has been going on for years. Hamilton68 documents examples. The parallels of this propaganda being sown to the lies dispensed to Ukraine to sow dissention is obvious. It is a cheap warfare, and it works. Tucker was and is in the trade of packaging Russian propaganda as news. He should be labeled as such. Carlson was discredited and fired by Fox. Spreading lies, admitting to doing so on archived tapes, and iirc, sexual harassment was in his part of the discovery on Fox’s $780M settlement. In short, Tucker Carlson is on record for knowingly spreading lies, for personal monetary benefit. This is more of the same. I hope every person watches Carlson, knowing that Carlson reports what enriches him, not truth. Carlson has a transparent agenda. The unanswered question is who pays Carlson. That will be obvious by who’s boots that Carlson’s reports shine.
Tucker was and is in the trade of packaging Russian propaganda as news
And much of the US “journalists” are in the business of packaging US propaganda as news. There is just as much propaganda - if not more - in general US news. Since the US likes to portray itself as hosting a free press, one would assume (if one were pretty naive, admittedly) it would be glad to have reporting on the Russian government’s positions and communiqués.
Hamilton68 documents examples
lmao this is a CIA outlet:
The organization is chaired and run primarily by former senior United States intelligence and State Department officials. Laura Thornton, formerly of International IDEA, joined ASD as its new director in May 2021. Laura Rosenberger, chair of the American Institute in Taiwan and former senior director for China on the Biden administration’s National Security Council, previously served as a director of ASD. ASD is housed at the German Marshall Fund of the United States and its work spans across both the United States and Europe
Even the fucking Washington Post (of all newpapers !) admits they’re not exactly a source to be trusted.
This is in part one of those situations where your argument amounts to question-begging. The reason being, just as a test: What if Russia was on the correct side of the war, would this still be coherent? Is there any contradiction in these Russian publicity outlets publishing correct information that is then opportunistically used by the rival party to the current US administration to discredit the latter?
If you already assume slava ukra’ini and that reactionaries have some magical inability to say things that are true, you can make a coherent story, but I would argue that the antithesis is at least as coherent a story.
I’m sure RT, etc. also publish bullshit that is also used by the right just as readily, but imo the Russian center-right can get by on policy wrt Ukraine by simply reporting facts faithfully, because theirs is a position [shared by much of the Russian left as well] that is only more justified as historical context increases and actors are more closely scrutinized. I was objectively late to the party when, in 2018, I was reading about the CIA backing Azov, but still I saw reality completely recast leading up to the invasion and thereby I had some advantage over the liberals who seem to believe that Ukraine is Palestine despite the fact that it’s Ukraine slaughtering ethnic minorities.
It doesn’t help that Ukraine can’t seem to find pictures of its military that don’t include fascist symbols, or that they absolutely wear their banderite bullshit on their sleeve if you actually listen to them speak. You can just report on these things faithfully and make the Ukrainian government and especially its military look monstrous to many viewers.
Matt Taibbi: Move Over, Jayson Blair: Meet Hamilton 68, the New King of Media Fraud The Twitter Files reveal that one of the most common news sources of the Trump era was a scam, making ordinary American political conversations look like Russian spywork
MSNBC Repeats Hamilton 68 Lies 279 Times in 11 Minutes
Chris Hedges: Why Russiagate Won’t Go Away
Why does the page have a “fairness” feedback meter, and how is enlightened centrism “factual and fair”?
The more opinions you have the more biased you are, thus sitting on your ass and accepting the status quo is the purest form of thinking possible.
Because question-begging centrism is all that any of these really are
If Assange and Snowden can’t come back, why cucker?
I always love how quickly the liberal mask falls off. The west is all about freedom, democracy, and free speech, until it’s something the lib mainstream doesn’t like to hear. It’s quite telling you’re not asking why Assange and Snowden are being prosecuted for revealing what they revealed, but you’re upset that this isn’t happening more.
Turns out that those who label Communists as tankies and authoritarians are well-aware of the necessity to suppress divergent viewpoints. Freedom of expression is limited to ideas that align with the liberal narrative; when faced with opinions they deem detrimental, liberals demand cancellation, imprisonment, or even death for the proponents.
The real disagreement liberals have with the Communists is over what set of ideas has merit. When liberals screech about authoritarianism what they’re really saying is that it’s their ideology that’s being suppressed.
the sheer hysteria over this is equal parts hilarious and revealing
Find me a single American journalist that interviewed Hitler after he invaded Poland. I’ll wait.
deleted by creator
Not only that, but US companies such as Ford and IBM continued to do business with Germany well into the war. And of course, we shouldn’t forget that nazis were directly inspired by US race laws, but initially even they found them to be too extreme.
Moyers: Bilbo said, “One drop of Negro blood placed in the veins of the purest Caucasian destroys the inventive genius of his mind and palsies his creative faculty.” Is it true that the Nazis thought the one-drop rule too extreme?
Whitman: They did indeed. They never proposed anything nearly as extreme as the one-drop rule. In fact the standard, the most far-reaching Nazi definitions of who counted as a Jew, matched the least far-reaching ones to be found in the American states. Virtually all American definitions of who counted as a black were far more draconian than anything found in any Nazi proposal. At the same time, the Nazi literature expressed real discomfort about the so-called one-drop rule, which, I have to say, was not found in every American state, as there were a variety of approaches in the US. But it was understandably notorious. The Nazis, difficult as it is to imagine, described the one-drop rule as inhuman, as “involving human hardness that’s going much, much too far, you couldn’t do that kind of thing,” they said. And their own definitions for who counted as a Jew, especially those that were ultimately attached to the Nuremberg Laws, were more restricted than anything to be found in American states at the time.
Just so we’re clear here, what you’re suggesting that engaging in wars of aggression automatically equates the country with the nazi Germany?
#BlueAnon report:
Reporter: [REDACTED]
Reason: smells like russian troll🤣
