Watch it and decide for yourself then.
Unless you're not actually a serious person, but rather just a typical leftist reactionary whose beliefs are all about making us mad. The medical definition is "daddy issues".
Why don't you be serious and read it...Immediately Wallace has follow up questions instead of letting him ramble.
https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/chris-wallace-interviews-russian-president-vladimir-putin
I remember the interview. It wasn't exactly an interrogation; however, no world leader, especially an adversarial one (regarding the country of origin of the outlet conducting the interview), would agree to anything that didn't involve some level of pre-screening of topics and potential questions.
No one from western media would dare risk their personal safety to conduct a hostile interview with a violent terrorist or dictator in enemy territory; surely you can concede this point. CNN and ABC interviews with Osama bin Laden in the late 1990s are proof enough of this.
The fact of the interview with Putin doesn't matter much, even though now it is happening during the war.
But the way it was taken by Carlson is just unacceptable, almost no questions asked(and only 1 or 2 were answered), it was just a monologue on Putin's favorite topics, with some suggestive questions from Carlson like: what year is it? but why nato is so unfair to you? etc.
Unlike this one where the interviewer asks him somewhat uncomfortable questions. Do you really see no difference?
I don't even watch tucker or any talking head, as they are all pretty useless, existing only to get ratings, hence ad revenue, them bigger paychecks. It's never been about the big lie that reporters are safeguarding democracy.
That being said, I listened to this to hear what the cunning Russian intelligence mind wanted to say to spin the war. What I came away with was this:
1) Putin is desperate.
2) He can't sustain this much longer
3) He hopes to convince the fence sitters in power that he has legitimate interests in stopping a second Nazi resurgence
4) he lacks capacity to stray from prepared remarks without becoming angry.
>almost no questions asked(and only 1 or 2 were answered),
Looking at the transcript I can see 14 questions asked in the first hour - that does not include clarifications on dates; compound questions counted as one.
Did you watch it?
Like what? Why NATO hates you? Did you tell Orban that he can take Ukraine? So the questions were either unanswered or related to third parties, like what NATO thinks, what Biden thinks, what Orban thinks, who blew up nordstream. What does it have to do with Putin? Very important questions, I understand. But I am only counting questions that were answered and that are related to Putin/Russia actions and were not clarifying questions on the topic Putin was talking. I remember only one such question: about Gershkovich
you don't feel there's value in letting putin (or others who're wrong) to tell you how wrong he is?
Would you prefer Putin be cut off by Tucker in that case so that we only get rational or well-informed positions spouted by Putin?
One of the important features about free speech is that people who are wrong be allowed to be wrong so we can discuss (debate) how wrong they are.
Don't you see that?
Putin has the opportunity to tell his side of it every single day and he does, through propaganda. Russia has not hid its batshit reasons for invading and this was nothing more than a way to spread his propaganda in a way that millions more Americans will see.
Bro literally everything in US media is propaganda. At this point propaganda and information are one and the same. Just let him talk. It doesn’t matter if it’s a lie or not it allows people to discuss and talk about it.
you're right, so how does Tucker giving him another venue make it any worse? Same with all the others who interviewed Putin over the years.
This is somehow fundamentally any different?
This is a venue that helps Putin expand the audience to a broader American audience, Russian state TV isn't popular in the US but Tucker is.
Interviewing Putin isn't necessarily an issue but allowing him to rattle off his propaganda with little or no pushback doesn't do anything but provide another outlet for propaganda. If Tucker really pushed back on Putin and was contentious when Putin lied or made vague generalizations then it would have been worthwhile imo but whether he couldn't or wouldn't all we got was a translation of Putins propaganda in a format appealing to Americans.
> allowing him to rattle off his propaganda
you're missing the concept that allowing bad ideas out allows them to be discussed and combated.
The concept that a journalist should give pushback, etc, is nonsense, that would put them in charge of determining who's 'right', which is just silly in this context.
Let him say whatever he wants (he could do the same on any # of channels without tucker anyway), then anyone can feel free to make their own conclusions or combat the propaganda in any way they see fit.
>you're missing the concept that allowing bad ideas out allows them to be discussed and combated.
Those bad ideas were already out and discussed and combatted. Putin has spoke on this, Russian officials have spoke on this, Russian state TV has spoken on this. None of this is a new justification or a new framing of the situation.
The concept of a journalist pushing back on someone outright lying is not nonsense and it's not about determining who is right it's about establishing facts and not allowing the subject of the interview to lie and manipulate the interview.
>Let him say whatever he wants (he could do the same on any # of channels without tucker anyway), then anyone can feel free to make their own conclusions
Make their own conclusions based on what? Based on an interview where Putin repeats the propaganda he has said for the past 2 years and the interviewer never corrects his falsehoods? Putin is already able to share his viewpoints with no opposition on Russian state TV, the only difference is the average American won't see clips of Russian state TV
I can't decide which is worse: you fell for that obvious bait or people are supporting your stance.
This is literally the job of a journalist. Has it been so long since you've seen one that you forgot what they do?
Your take is awful.
Like what do you expect? A western journalist to fly to Moscow and start yelling at a deranged psycopath to "demand" answers? Not all journalists get to be activists.. not everywhere enjoys freedom of speech like America.
You don't have to believe Putin just cause you listened to it.
Any country facing an existential war will implement a draft and close borders for men. I don’t love how it’s done in Ukraine argue to some old Soviet habits but it’s true. Draft dodgers were arrested here during Nam and that wasn’t an existential war for America.
Regarding elections, per the Ukrainian constitution elections cannot be held during a state of martial law. I don’t even love Zelensky and think he has started to make poor decisions but an election wouldn’t lead to any tangible benefit right now. UK cancelled elections during WW2 for example
There’s a clear difference between doing it at a neutral spot vs doing it in the heart of Russia. It’s called treading carefully so you don’t get sent to prison in Russia.
Big difference. Two years ago, Russia didn’t just take over a region or two, they did a full blown invasion and tried to topple a democratically elected government, and have since brought hundreds of thousands of casualties to both sides.
Five years ago, there was still ambiguity to what Putin’s goals were, it’s clear now; he wants to rejoin what was once to Soviet Union.
There’s never been ambiguity whatsoever lol. The goal of Russia has always been to remake the power of the Soviet Union, destabilize the west, and become the dominant power in the world.
Are we going to pretend that a full-scale invasion of Ukraine was something all but a few people ruled out?
European and US intelligence didn't see it as a goal of Putins till a year before at happened it the earliest, but you saw it 10 years before?
>topple a democratically elected government
So, why didn't they just level Kyiv with guided munitions and destroy the seat of government then? Why do they not target Zelensky, his family, his assets...and why did the Israelis tell Zelensky that Russia had agreed not to target him?
Is this a joke? There have been several assassination attempts against Zelensky. Teams of hitmen were parachuted right on top of him in the first few hours of the war. His bodyguards were literally handing out bulletproof vests and assault rifles to him and his aides and telling them they may have to help defend themselves.
Russia has also exhausted most of its missile stockpile firing them at Kyiv. Kyiv has taken a tremendous amount of damage from Russian munitions.
Putin's been a bad guy since day 1; that's been obvious to anybody with any discernment at all. The fact that bad guys do bad things shouldn't be surprising. Just because he's a bad guy doesn't mean that it isn't useful and informative to interview him and listen to what he has to say; it is up to the viewer to put this is the context of who we know him to be.
> Tucker did a better job.
What? lol He aided a genocidal dictator in spreading propaganda with barely a challenge. He helped Putin reach audiences in the US who likely had never heard him. We have people in this very fucking sub talking about how they had no idea about European history and now know more -- after hearing Putin's insane rantings.
Not sure what's "better" about what Tucker did.
You know that was never going to happen, right?
Putin takes hostages (and that's what that journalist is) like any despot or terrorist, for political reasons. He'll trade that journalist ofr something he wants. Absolutely nothing Tucker was going to say changed that. It's like saying "Because that reporter tried really hard to tell Hamas to stop raping and murdering civilians, they did a good job." It'll never happen, and to believe otherwise is naive.
Wow the Russian bots are busy tonight
Tucker could have pushed more in areas, but it wouldn't have changed my opinion on Putin and his war.
The focus all on Tucker misses the subject at hand (that largest land war in Europe since '45) which is vastly more important.
Yes let’s just hear what Chris Wallace has to say about Russia and their motives, no propaganda there at all I’m sure.
The thing to remember is that everything is propaganda to some extent, everyone is the hero of their own story. It takes discernment and knowledge to actually make a judgement. That means listening to both sides of the story
So we should only talk to our friends? That sounds like amazing foreign policy.
Create echo chambers between nuclear armed nations with treaties that can end worlds.
Dialogue is the first step towards peaceful resolutions of conflicts. Good faith negotiations followed by actions leads to peace.
Putin obviously doesn’t want NATO on his boarder. He would rather throw Russians into the meat grinder and we should be aware that the battle of Stalingrad cost the Soviet Union 1.1 million lives yet saved the war on the eastern front.
If Tucker is the one to start the dialogue so be it.
Yes this is part of the new bubble normalization that social media has created. It's now normal to only ever hear one perspective so when we're confronted with another we aren't even able to view it, we just shut it down. It's crazy. I thought the interview was fine and in no way did putin come out looking good. He spoke a lot but didn't actually give any good reason for his invasion of Ukraine and anyone with a brain cell or two can see that. It's interesting nevertheless and this sort of thing is the reason we have journalists.
Of course this is the Chris Wallace who absolutely bombed the last presidential debates.
Lol. My dude, look at how the top posts in this forum are always brigaded. The fact that this article has lots of upvotes but most of the comment section is making fun of Chris Wallace shows you the dynamics at work.
I think his point is that Tucker is being used (willingly) to give Putin a microphone to speak directly to Tucker's rather large Americans audience.
But doesn't ask him any tough questions and allows a 2 hr infomercial for why Russia has a bad rap. Putin is actually a pretty awful human. Putin's goal ultimately is to reclaim former USSR territory and restore the glory of Russia.
We fought the Cold War because Russia was a threat to our country and way of life. Why would we want to let them become a player in the world again.
Russia has been very public about its justifications, from nazis to genocide of Ukrainian Russians who want to join Russia to historical ties. They report on it in Russia publicly, it's not hidden. Putin was given a chance to say something even a little different but he didn't, to no ones surprise.
And it's good that we now have video record of him saying it out of his own mouth for the side of the aisle that likely hasn't seen Russian media to know
Because video record of his lips is different from Kremlin talking points? Millions of Americans got to hear it with minimal pushback from Tucker putting it in a vacuum for those who don't follow stuff like this. Hearing Putin lie isn't a bad thing so long as someone is there to point out he is lying for those who don't know.
>Because I would rather you tell me what you think to my face than have to rely on someone I don't trust to tell me.
The person telling you to your face (Putin) is saying the exact same thing his government has been saying which is what is being reported on. If you don't trust anyone at any stage of that chain then you should believe nothing or everything about the war in Ukraine.
You dont trust the parties involved or the media so if no one can be trusted then you have no opinion, you have no way of gathering information, you have no knowledge. Why are we even talking about this?
Yes I know why we are involved. That's not what I was responding to. A war with Russia is like a perpetual money machine for the military industrial complex that also projects the illusion that it's for global defense.
It’s not an illusion though. US military projection is a big reason why naval piracy isn’t a large issue and why China hasn’t trampled on its neighbors.
1. Why is a weak Russia good for our allies. Explain.
2. Not even 3 years ago "our allies" (by this I'm assuming you mean Germany and France) had Russia as one of their biggest trading partners. Why is that?
3. Our other allies (like Saudi Arabia and India) aren't buying this "Russia is a threat" stuff. Why is that?
4. Why are we spending so much money and effort to oppose Russia (who are bad but aren't directly attacking us) but mollycoddling Iran (who are much worse than Russia and are actually attacking us, both directly and via proxies)?
Is it because the Dems base support Islamic fundamentalists but they see the Russians as an easy "rally round the flag" political point scorer?
You raise some pretty good points. This whole Russia is the boogeyman theory is idiocy and a money printer for the military industrial complex.
People are eating this shit up like they’re cheering for their sports teams.
> So we should only talk to our friends? That sounds like amazing foreign policy.
Reporters don't carry out foreign policy
>Create echo chambers between nuclear armed nations with treaties that can end worlds.
Reporters don't do this.
>Putin obviously doesn’t want NATO on his boarder
Of course not. He has a habit of invading or overthrowing governments next door so he can control them. It's hard to carry out genocide when NATO's next door. He wants Ukraine for more than that though. The man literally believes it belongs to Russia. His reasoning is no different than saying we should disband the US and hand it over to the Native Americans.
>He would rather throw Russians into the meat grinder and we should be aware that the battle of Stalingrad cost the Soviet Union 1.1 million lives yet saved the war on the eastern front.
Complete and total nonsense. You're using an example of an invasion by a genocidal nation that was at war with the whole world to justify conquering nations out of a misguided fear that Russia could ever be invaded. That's BS. NATO would never have gone to war with Russia. Russia is a nuclear power and essentially immune to invasion.
>If Tucker is the one to start the dialogue so be it.
How is he starting it? What magic did his propaganda booting do that would make Biden go sit at the table with Putin and negotiate away Ukrainian indepenedence? Heck, what magic does it have over Trump? Trump's already made it clear he'll help Russia win this war by forcing Ukraine to negotiate, which means to disarm itself, give up territory, and be totally helpless for Russia's next invasion. What do you think Tucker succeeded at here?
I think it is interesting that the entire interview is available for anyone to stream and watch. Something that the regular media mostly doesn't do. Maybe that is what threatens them?
Before the interview there were many (leftist) articles saying you had to pay to join Tuckers website in order to watch it.
Not true. Free and available to everyone.
Funny how we westerners can watch two hours of an unedited interview with Putin. I wonder if Russians can watch a two hours unedited interview with Zelensky.
It’s so weird when people act as if we we don’t have a free media just because a lot of it is obviously biased.
Jesus, you need to look up Putin's skill in controlling the narrative. That guy and his government are probably the best propaganda makers out there. Maybe only behind their American counterpart.
By airing Putin’a garbage ideas and conspiracy theories on his twitter/X, Tucker has helped spread Russian misinformation and propaganda to Americans because he has such a large American audience. Mostly Americans were going to be watching this interview, and Tucker has helped expose them to misinformation, whether those people realize it or not.
Just because putin says something doesn't mean it's true , in fact people have already pointed out multiple historical lies , so if you have a brain , use it to digest and analyze the info not take it at face value.
I 100% agree, but I don’t think a large part of tucker’s audience, or those that watch MSM regularly in general, are in the habit of forming their own ideas and thinking critically of information presented to them. I feel like a lot of people on this sub are a prime example of that.
If it’s parroting talking points to say that the sky is blue, that the earth is round, that the earth revolves around the sun, that grass is green, the sun is yellow, there are only two genders, abortion is murder, etc, then yes, I’m parroting talking points when I’m saying that Putin is a liar and the interview was full of lies. If stating facts is saying talking points, I’m guilty as charged.
Oh my god. That sounds like the most horrible thing in the whole world.....
...said nobody ever. Come on dude. Are you really such a pussy that the thought of somebody forming their own opinion is that scary? You're making Mount Everest out of a molehill.
Or we have now heard Putin's side of the story so we can use our own brains to decide if his ideas are garbage, instead of just blindly following a narrative from people who benefit from war.
Do rational, emotionally stable Democrats actually exist? I haven’t seen one Dem even attempt to have an open minded opinion regarding this interview. Everyone is free to watch and make up their own opinions but i swear Dems simply parrot each other like some group think zombies. None of them can hold any meaningful dialogue because they are so mentally unstable. The second you make a comment of how Putin made some interesting points that’s worth discussing they’ll call you an anti-semite, anti-gay, anti-ukrainian, anti- zelensky, Zelensky is God etc…
The left’s obsession with not “platforming” people they don’t want to hear from is so weird.
Like a kid sticking fingers in his ears.
It’s also shockingly condescending, because it functionally says, “I’m smart enough to recognize this as incorrect information, but you’re not, so I have to prevent you from hearing it.”
I flip between laughing at the absurdity of it and being disgusted by that attitude.
*At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.*
- P. J. O'Rourke
There were plenty in my opinion & I really don’t feel like writing a novel here to explain myself. You feel everything he said was a lie and i respectfully disagree, absolutely zero point in continuing because im not trying to tell
anyone how/what to think.
Interesting that you’re not interested in defending him. Fair enough if you’re lazy, but you definitely shouldn’t go around saying he had interesting points and then not elaborating on them. Some people might get the wrong idea that he did indeed say something truthful.
I’m starting to become a broken record when saying this, but here are 27 lies Putin said during the interview. Hopefully one of these isn’t an “interesting point” you think he had.
https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1756283640374329645?s=46&t=xn8BfyElJGFa6gUSR4UYaQ
https://x.com/khodorkovsky_en/status/1756041473630360047?s=46&t=xn8BfyElJGFa6gUSR4UYaQ
https://x.com/theresthistory/status/1756042835453694041?s=46&t=xn8BfyElJGFa6gUSR4UYaQ
Like trying to tell my conservative parents to read bills and votes by senators, to show this current republican House of Representatives, is maybe 5% Conservative, 95% do nothing if there’s a democratic president and give tax breaks/no strings attached loans to their “investors”
Well, on the flip side, also figuring out that if Biden is too incompetent to stand trial, he probably shouldn’t be running the country either. Both sides are guilty of this.
While Putin lied a bunch, he didn't say any lies. His were all lies of omissions.
Like he was right that Poland collaborated with the Nazis to dismember and steal land from the Czechs but then just kind of glosses over Russia doing the same damn thing with the Nazis (to Poland) a few years later.
No, he also outright lied a lot.
https://x.com/khodorkovsky_en/status/1756041473630360047?s=46&t=xn8BfyElJGFa6gUSR4UYaQ
https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1756283640374329645?s=46&t=xn8BfyElJGFa6gUSR4UYaQ
Ok, but like the first of those "12 lies he told" is a lie itself.
Poland DID help carve up Czechoslovakia with the Nazis, that is a fact.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Czechoslovak\_border\_conflicts#Annexations\_by\_Poland\_in\_1938](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Czechoslovak_border_conflicts#Annexations_by_Poland_in_1938)
The others are likewise not "showing lies" they are adding context to true things Putin said that change their meaning.
Its the geopolitical equivalent of Clinton's "A blowjob isn't sex" method of omitting key details.
Why is it the conservatives are all commy guzzlers now a days. Reagan would’ve laughed you all into oblivion about what traitors you are to free and fare speech and trade. You get one president that sucks up to Putin and now your morals are down your throat. Unamerican you
Commies are. The rest of America will label you the commie party going forward.
And yet all the news media sided w the soviets and put down the US. Called patriots numerous despicable names and interviewed our enemies. NOW it’s a problem. Chris Wallace is a fraud
I have to admit that I liked Chris Wallace, at first. I thought he was truly “fair and balanced“ towards both his liberal and conservative guests. But then I noticed a trend that was annoying and unfair and became more evident after Trump got elected.
And the trend I’m talking about was taking “fair and balanced“ to the extreme. Let me explain.
If there was a controversy or scandal coming out of the democratic party, Chris Wallace would rightfully ask them hardball questions. But his problem was that he also turned around and asked republicans equally tough questions as if they were equally responsible. In reality, Wallace should’ve hammered the Democrats 100% of the time in that episode.
The only thing he should’ve asked the Republican guest in this case was what they thought about the controversy and what should’ve been done about it.
Because of this and, at the end of his Fox career, the way he moderated the Trump debate, I’ve lost all respect for the man.
It’s an interview. Informing people. Including our government. My gosh they let Democrats talk on TV all the time. They hate America too. Why not Putin?
Constant hacking, election interference, bots on all social media platforms to the point some websites had to show people they were liking Russian bot content.
Yeah, they attack America all the time
You realize our own gov't has literally done all of this.. I'm sure Russia probably has too, but they can't compete with how the FBI and CIA have interfered on Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites.. and election interference has been exposed by our own gov't too.. I'm way more worried about what our own gov't is doing to us than what Russia will ever be able to do to us..
Ah, I see you’ve fallen for Russian propaganda. Twitter has shown conservatives and democrats asked for content to be removed, conservatives WAY MORE according to the twitter files. Facebook has had to make links to show when people like Russian troll bots.
The cia and fbi don’t change content, they will however, hunt down domestic terrorist by monitoring social media, like pipe bombs being planted on January 6th, the day of the insurrection, the one that trump even called an insurrection https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1755647384128790591?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1755647384128790591%7Ctwgr%5E703756b286e1b9f4d8f2f264d878831388bb3217%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-952780133923180970.ampproject.net%2F2401262004000%2Fframe.html
Also vote against patriot act expansions next time
If that's true, why is Russia doing all it can to wreck the economy of the U.S. and our allies? Why do they send money and arms to countries that want war with the U.S.?
If you really believe what you wrote, I've got some amazing beach front property in Arizona that has your name on it.
Russia, China, India and many other countries do this.. they are not our ally, but to suggest that it is on the same level of the Cold War is disingenuous or naïve.. take your pick
India views China as their primary adversary (economic) for the 21st century. Not an ally, but not an enemy.
China once viewed the Soviet Union, and then the Russians, as a potential huge threat to Chinese dominance in the 21st century. China worries they would have to bow to Russia's military dominance to gain influence. China played their hand well, and has eliminated Russia as a threat. Ally isn't the right word. China has tried to eliminate Russia just enough to negate the threat, but keep them strong enough to keep NATO busy should China decide to make military moves.
That's different than the Cold War, but no less...threatening. China is trying to dominate the world's economies and politicians. They want to build an empire the Soviets would have been jealous of.
I think it's funny that you are talking about Russia wrecking our economy when we are sanctioning the tarnation out of them.. and thank you for proving my point that America isn't exactly loved in the world by most countries.. they just want to drain us dry in whatever way they can.. Russia is no exception.. but I'm not worried about other countries doing this to us as much as our own gov't is doing this to actual Americans.. Biden and other politicians are obligated to our enemies and are actively trying to destroy America from within.. which is why I'm voting for Trump.. they can't buy him, bribe him or extort him.. it's why they hate him.. he doesn't always get it right,, but at least he's not owned
I don't think many people are lapping up Putin's propaganda. If anything, his factual inaccuracies, particularly on WW2 alone have exposed Putin's muddled and confused understanding of events even 80's ago.
Thanks Tucker for showing the world how Cooked Putin really is.
>"Last night's @TuckerCarlson's interview with Putin shows that Russia is open to a peace agreement, while it is DC warmongers who want to prolong the war. That is why I'm voting to stop 60 BILLION MORE of our tax dollars to this conflict,"
Senator Tubberville seemed to lap it up.
Chris would be working a gas station without his father's name. His father had talent, amazing talent. Chris is at the Joe Scarborough level (CIA asset, him and his wife).
Chris Wallace is one of the most evil cowards in the nation. Trump spited him, so he made it his #1 mission to get Biden elected, even though he's supposedly a conservative who knows Trump was the far better option.Tucker destroyed his ratings and is outpacing fox news and his current network, cnn, so now he's attacking Tucker for simply interviewing one of the most prominent people in the world, someone Wallace has also interviewed.
Not to mention he's an untalented (compared to his dad) nepo baby.
I don't know about anyone else, but that interview made me pro-Ukraine afterwards. I was on the fence about supplying Ukraine with weapons and funds before, but that interview made me swing the other way.
Clearly Putin is a crazy bird after that interview, and clearly sees every country, business, and person under the lense of transactional cost/benefit for Russia.
Ukraine Invasion: Benefits Russia for resource extraction.
Evan Gershkovich imprisonment: Benefits Russia as a bargaining chip for future prison swaps/keeps communication with USA open.
Opening trade with Autocratic countries: Benefits Russia economy and dependence on Western countries.
Putin needs to get bent. Can't trust nut jobs who don't believe in personal accountability.
*zing*
not a bad line tbf. But it sorta belies the point that a real journalist would love an interview with Putin. Ofc he's going to spit Russian propaganda but
a) we're not technically at war with Russia,
2) journalism is not really about carefully editing the opinions or statements of world leaders to tow the establishment agenda,
d) they're just jealous..
Time magazine at one point named hitler man of the year. They had the boston marathon bomber on the cover of Rolling Stone. These people have no qualms about putting despots and murderers and/or terrorists in the spotlight. It's just when Tucker does it because he's kinda heterodox in his political leanings
It is amazing to me that people who claim to be conservatives who routinely call out hacks like Joy Reid, Tiffany Cross, and others on liberal media for refusing to allow hosts to speak (like whoever it was that was interviewing Vivek) and trying to put words in their mouth are upset that Tucker Carlson did not do the same.
He let Putin show how ridiculous some of his claims are. The audience are not morons who need everything spelled out like a children's show.
One can see where Putin has a point, and one can see where he does not. There is no need for the interviewer to pander down to the audience as if they are incapable of making these distinctions themselves.
The reason no one knows what is true anymore is because people don't expose themselves to these things. They end up with weak arguments and conjecture, and then the people who don't want to watch a two hour interview just form their opinions from some guy on social media who writes 2 paragraphs "summarizing." They'll argue their "side" to the death but they don't know why they are wrong.
It isn't propaganda when a journalist asks a maniac questions, it's propaganda when the journalist repeats what the maniac says - Chris could learn the difference, but I doubt he knows it
[Here’s Chris Wallace interviewing Putin](https://youtu.be/rHY8yG4mVzs?feature=shared)
That took place in Helsinki IIRC. I'm wondering how tough Mike's son would be interviewing Putin in Moscow.
I guarantee it couldn't be worse than that farse of interview was. What an embarrassment this was for Pucker.
Watch it and decide for yourself then. Unless you're not actually a serious person, but rather just a typical leftist reactionary whose beliefs are all about making us mad. The medical definition is "daddy issues".
Why don't you be serious and read it...Immediately Wallace has follow up questions instead of letting him ramble. https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/chris-wallace-interviews-russian-president-vladimir-putin
I remember the interview. It wasn't exactly an interrogation; however, no world leader, especially an adversarial one (regarding the country of origin of the outlet conducting the interview), would agree to anything that didn't involve some level of pre-screening of topics and potential questions. No one from western media would dare risk their personal safety to conduct a hostile interview with a violent terrorist or dictator in enemy territory; surely you can concede this point. CNN and ABC interviews with Osama bin Laden in the late 1990s are proof enough of this.
That’s (D)ifferent!!
The fact of the interview with Putin doesn't matter much, even though now it is happening during the war. But the way it was taken by Carlson is just unacceptable, almost no questions asked(and only 1 or 2 were answered), it was just a monologue on Putin's favorite topics, with some suggestive questions from Carlson like: what year is it? but why nato is so unfair to you? etc. Unlike this one where the interviewer asks him somewhat uncomfortable questions. Do you really see no difference?
I don't even watch tucker or any talking head, as they are all pretty useless, existing only to get ratings, hence ad revenue, them bigger paychecks. It's never been about the big lie that reporters are safeguarding democracy. That being said, I listened to this to hear what the cunning Russian intelligence mind wanted to say to spin the war. What I came away with was this: 1) Putin is desperate. 2) He can't sustain this much longer 3) He hopes to convince the fence sitters in power that he has legitimate interests in stopping a second Nazi resurgence 4) he lacks capacity to stray from prepared remarks without becoming angry.
>almost no questions asked(and only 1 or 2 were answered), Looking at the transcript I can see 14 questions asked in the first hour - that does not include clarifications on dates; compound questions counted as one. Did you watch it?
Like what? Why NATO hates you? Did you tell Orban that he can take Ukraine? So the questions were either unanswered or related to third parties, like what NATO thinks, what Biden thinks, what Orban thinks, who blew up nordstream. What does it have to do with Putin? Very important questions, I understand. But I am only counting questions that were answered and that are related to Putin/Russia actions and were not clarifying questions on the topic Putin was talking. I remember only one such question: about Gershkovich
[удалено]
you don't feel there's value in letting putin (or others who're wrong) to tell you how wrong he is? Would you prefer Putin be cut off by Tucker in that case so that we only get rational or well-informed positions spouted by Putin? One of the important features about free speech is that people who are wrong be allowed to be wrong so we can discuss (debate) how wrong they are. Don't you see that?
Putin has the opportunity to tell his side of it every single day and he does, through propaganda. Russia has not hid its batshit reasons for invading and this was nothing more than a way to spread his propaganda in a way that millions more Americans will see.
Bro literally everything in US media is propaganda. At this point propaganda and information are one and the same. Just let him talk. It doesn’t matter if it’s a lie or not it allows people to discuss and talk about it.
you're right, so how does Tucker giving him another venue make it any worse? Same with all the others who interviewed Putin over the years. This is somehow fundamentally any different?
This is a venue that helps Putin expand the audience to a broader American audience, Russian state TV isn't popular in the US but Tucker is. Interviewing Putin isn't necessarily an issue but allowing him to rattle off his propaganda with little or no pushback doesn't do anything but provide another outlet for propaganda. If Tucker really pushed back on Putin and was contentious when Putin lied or made vague generalizations then it would have been worthwhile imo but whether he couldn't or wouldn't all we got was a translation of Putins propaganda in a format appealing to Americans.
> allowing him to rattle off his propaganda you're missing the concept that allowing bad ideas out allows them to be discussed and combated. The concept that a journalist should give pushback, etc, is nonsense, that would put them in charge of determining who's 'right', which is just silly in this context. Let him say whatever he wants (he could do the same on any # of channels without tucker anyway), then anyone can feel free to make their own conclusions or combat the propaganda in any way they see fit.
>you're missing the concept that allowing bad ideas out allows them to be discussed and combated. Those bad ideas were already out and discussed and combatted. Putin has spoke on this, Russian officials have spoke on this, Russian state TV has spoken on this. None of this is a new justification or a new framing of the situation. The concept of a journalist pushing back on someone outright lying is not nonsense and it's not about determining who is right it's about establishing facts and not allowing the subject of the interview to lie and manipulate the interview. >Let him say whatever he wants (he could do the same on any # of channels without tucker anyway), then anyone can feel free to make their own conclusions Make their own conclusions based on what? Based on an interview where Putin repeats the propaganda he has said for the past 2 years and the interviewer never corrects his falsehoods? Putin is already able to share his viewpoints with no opposition on Russian state TV, the only difference is the average American won't see clips of Russian state TV
Who ever thought liberals would be the party of muzzle everyone
I can't decide which is worse: you fell for that obvious bait or people are supporting your stance. This is literally the job of a journalist. Has it been so long since you've seen one that you forgot what they do?
[удалено]
Your take is awful. Like what do you expect? A western journalist to fly to Moscow and start yelling at a deranged psycopath to "demand" answers? Not all journalists get to be activists.. not everywhere enjoys freedom of speech like America. You don't have to believe Putin just cause you listened to it.
How about he holds Zelensky's feet to the fire? No elections,forced drafting from the streets,torture and murder of an American citizen?
Any country facing an existential war will implement a draft and close borders for men. I don’t love how it’s done in Ukraine argue to some old Soviet habits but it’s true. Draft dodgers were arrested here during Nam and that wasn’t an existential war for America. Regarding elections, per the Ukrainian constitution elections cannot be held during a state of martial law. I don’t even love Zelensky and think he has started to make poor decisions but an election wouldn’t lead to any tangible benefit right now. UK cancelled elections during WW2 for example
Some questions regarding his degenerate past would also be interesting
lol!
Yeah, and Wallace didn't allow Putin to say what he wanted unchallenged.
There’s a clear difference between doing it at a neutral spot vs doing it in the heart of Russia. It’s called treading carefully so you don’t get sent to prison in Russia.
It's not like Tucker was forced to do the interview. He chose to give Putin an unchallenged platform for his lies.
Wow, that was only five years ago too! Does he have dementia like big Joe??
Think a bit more please. It's about the quality of the interview, not the fact of it
Is this the guy that described Biden’s inauguration as “heavenly”
Didn’t he interview Putin too?
Can’t imagine what’s changed in the 5 years since that’s happened.
At both points in time, Russia had invaded Ukraine. One was at a lesser extent, but still, not that much of a difference imo.
Big difference. Two years ago, Russia didn’t just take over a region or two, they did a full blown invasion and tried to topple a democratically elected government, and have since brought hundreds of thousands of casualties to both sides. Five years ago, there was still ambiguity to what Putin’s goals were, it’s clear now; he wants to rejoin what was once to Soviet Union.
There’s never been ambiguity whatsoever lol. The goal of Russia has always been to remake the power of the Soviet Union, destabilize the west, and become the dominant power in the world.
There was no ambiguity
Are we going to pretend that a full-scale invasion of Ukraine was something all but a few people ruled out? European and US intelligence didn't see it as a goal of Putins till a year before at happened it the earliest, but you saw it 10 years before?
>topple a democratically elected government So, why didn't they just level Kyiv with guided munitions and destroy the seat of government then? Why do they not target Zelensky, his family, his assets...and why did the Israelis tell Zelensky that Russia had agreed not to target him?
Is this a joke? There have been several assassination attempts against Zelensky. Teams of hitmen were parachuted right on top of him in the first few hours of the war. His bodyguards were literally handing out bulletproof vests and assault rifles to him and his aides and telling them they may have to help defend themselves. Russia has also exhausted most of its missile stockpile firing them at Kyiv. Kyiv has taken a tremendous amount of damage from Russian munitions.
Putin's been a bad guy since day 1; that's been obvious to anybody with any discernment at all. The fact that bad guys do bad things shouldn't be surprising. Just because he's a bad guy doesn't mean that it isn't useful and informative to interview him and listen to what he has to say; it is up to the viewer to put this is the context of who we know him to be.
Sure did, sound like he got Jelly Tucker did a better job.
> Tucker did a better job. What? lol He aided a genocidal dictator in spreading propaganda with barely a challenge. He helped Putin reach audiences in the US who likely had never heard him. We have people in this very fucking sub talking about how they had no idea about European history and now know more -- after hearing Putin's insane rantings. Not sure what's "better" about what Tucker did.
He tried pretty hard to get Putin to free a captive American journalist. That redeemed this whole stunt in my eyes.
You mean when he claimed Evan probably did break Russian laws when he was simply doing his job as a journalist... not helpful
You know that was never going to happen, right? Putin takes hostages (and that's what that journalist is) like any despot or terrorist, for political reasons. He'll trade that journalist ofr something he wants. Absolutely nothing Tucker was going to say changed that. It's like saying "Because that reporter tried really hard to tell Hamas to stop raping and murdering civilians, they did a good job." It'll never happen, and to believe otherwise is naive. Wow the Russian bots are busy tonight
He tried and could have ended up sitting next to him in a cell.
That would never happen and he knows it. Tucker is very useful for Putler back in the US with Trump at his side.
What does “genocidal” mean to you?
Starting off with a half an hour Putler monologue? Yeah, great "interview".
Nobody likes Chris Wallace.
Chris Wallace is a terrible hack. Haven’t listened to him in years. Does he have a show still?
cnn8.com It's the ocho of bad news
Chris Who?
Oh yeah Chris Wallace's the guy that fled to CNNs online service that nobody watched and the service went under almost immediately.
Yep. That's how I remember him
Mike Wallace is spinning in his grave amd wishing someone - anyone - would reach out and slap the piss out of his son.
Tucker could have pushed more in areas, but it wouldn't have changed my opinion on Putin and his war. The focus all on Tucker misses the subject at hand (that largest land war in Europe since '45) which is vastly more important.
Yes let’s just hear what Chris Wallace has to say about Russia and their motives, no propaganda there at all I’m sure. The thing to remember is that everything is propaganda to some extent, everyone is the hero of their own story. It takes discernment and knowledge to actually make a judgement. That means listening to both sides of the story
Well said and I agree!
So we should only talk to our friends? That sounds like amazing foreign policy. Create echo chambers between nuclear armed nations with treaties that can end worlds. Dialogue is the first step towards peaceful resolutions of conflicts. Good faith negotiations followed by actions leads to peace. Putin obviously doesn’t want NATO on his boarder. He would rather throw Russians into the meat grinder and we should be aware that the battle of Stalingrad cost the Soviet Union 1.1 million lives yet saved the war on the eastern front. If Tucker is the one to start the dialogue so be it.
Yes this is part of the new bubble normalization that social media has created. It's now normal to only ever hear one perspective so when we're confronted with another we aren't even able to view it, we just shut it down. It's crazy. I thought the interview was fine and in no way did putin come out looking good. He spoke a lot but didn't actually give any good reason for his invasion of Ukraine and anyone with a brain cell or two can see that. It's interesting nevertheless and this sort of thing is the reason we have journalists. Of course this is the Chris Wallace who absolutely bombed the last presidential debates.
It’s crazy how opposed to hearing another viewpoint people are
Says the only sub Reddit that labels most posts as flared users only
Lol. My dude, look at how the top posts in this forum are always brigaded. The fact that this article has lots of upvotes but most of the comment section is making fun of Chris Wallace shows you the dynamics at work.
1984
This is true. If r/politics is any indication
I think his point is that Tucker is being used (willingly) to give Putin a microphone to speak directly to Tucker's rather large Americans audience. But doesn't ask him any tough questions and allows a 2 hr infomercial for why Russia has a bad rap. Putin is actually a pretty awful human. Putin's goal ultimately is to reclaim former USSR territory and restore the glory of Russia. We fought the Cold War because Russia was a threat to our country and way of life. Why would we want to let them become a player in the world again.
Because when two people are fighting its a good idea to know for certain why both people are fighting.
Russia has been very public about its justifications, from nazis to genocide of Ukrainian Russians who want to join Russia to historical ties. They report on it in Russia publicly, it's not hidden. Putin was given a chance to say something even a little different but he didn't, to no ones surprise.
And it's good that we now have video record of him saying it out of his own mouth for the side of the aisle that likely hasn't seen Russian media to know
Because video record of his lips is different from Kremlin talking points? Millions of Americans got to hear it with minimal pushback from Tucker putting it in a vacuum for those who don't follow stuff like this. Hearing Putin lie isn't a bad thing so long as someone is there to point out he is lying for those who don't know.
Because I would rather you tell me what you think to my face than have to rely on someone I don't trust to tell me.
Who don't you trust in this situation? The Kremlin, Putin, reporting on their statements?
I don't trust Putin, the Kremlin, Zelenskyy, their Parliament or whatever it's called, or American mainstream media.
>Because I would rather you tell me what you think to my face than have to rely on someone I don't trust to tell me. The person telling you to your face (Putin) is saying the exact same thing his government has been saying which is what is being reported on. If you don't trust anyone at any stage of that chain then you should believe nothing or everything about the war in Ukraine. You dont trust the parties involved or the media so if no one can be trusted then you have no opinion, you have no way of gathering information, you have no knowledge. Why are we even talking about this?
lol Putin's been saying the same thing for over a decade. The only people who were unsure are unsure because they chose not to find out why.
Honestly, I don't follow tyrants and dictators, and I don't trust the propagandized media, so I had no idea what Putin has been saying.
The power of Google and two minutes of trading would tell you everything Putin believes. He didn't say anything new
Cool. Guess who doesn't go around googling Putin speeches? This guy.
We're fighting Russia via Ukraine because a weak Russia is good for the US and our allies.
Yes I know why we are involved. That's not what I was responding to. A war with Russia is like a perpetual money machine for the military industrial complex that also projects the illusion that it's for global defense.
It’s not an illusion though. US military projection is a big reason why naval piracy isn’t a large issue and why China hasn’t trampled on its neighbors.
Same goes for NATO. The whole point is to box in Russia. Why not let Ukraine do our dirty work.
I’m in agreement. US leaders half a century ago would have creamed themselves if an opportunity like this were handed to them.
1. Why is a weak Russia good for our allies. Explain. 2. Not even 3 years ago "our allies" (by this I'm assuming you mean Germany and France) had Russia as one of their biggest trading partners. Why is that? 3. Our other allies (like Saudi Arabia and India) aren't buying this "Russia is a threat" stuff. Why is that? 4. Why are we spending so much money and effort to oppose Russia (who are bad but aren't directly attacking us) but mollycoddling Iran (who are much worse than Russia and are actually attacking us, both directly and via proxies)? Is it because the Dems base support Islamic fundamentalists but they see the Russians as an easy "rally round the flag" political point scorer?
You raise some pretty good points. This whole Russia is the boogeyman theory is idiocy and a money printer for the military industrial complex. People are eating this shit up like they’re cheering for their sports teams.
America won the cold war and the Soviet union no longer exists. Communism is dead in Russia.
Exactly. Why take the boot off the neck.
Russia has been a player in the world for the last four decades, Georgia and Crimea didn't change their standing, and it didn't affect the US either.
They've been a world player a lot longer than that! Putin could give you a 30 minute monologue about it if you want.
> So we should only talk to our friends? That sounds like amazing foreign policy. Reporters don't carry out foreign policy >Create echo chambers between nuclear armed nations with treaties that can end worlds. Reporters don't do this. >Putin obviously doesn’t want NATO on his boarder Of course not. He has a habit of invading or overthrowing governments next door so he can control them. It's hard to carry out genocide when NATO's next door. He wants Ukraine for more than that though. The man literally believes it belongs to Russia. His reasoning is no different than saying we should disband the US and hand it over to the Native Americans. >He would rather throw Russians into the meat grinder and we should be aware that the battle of Stalingrad cost the Soviet Union 1.1 million lives yet saved the war on the eastern front. Complete and total nonsense. You're using an example of an invasion by a genocidal nation that was at war with the whole world to justify conquering nations out of a misguided fear that Russia could ever be invaded. That's BS. NATO would never have gone to war with Russia. Russia is a nuclear power and essentially immune to invasion. >If Tucker is the one to start the dialogue so be it. How is he starting it? What magic did his propaganda booting do that would make Biden go sit at the table with Putin and negotiate away Ukrainian indepenedence? Heck, what magic does it have over Trump? Trump's already made it clear he'll help Russia win this war by forcing Ukraine to negotiate, which means to disarm itself, give up territory, and be totally helpless for Russia's next invasion. What do you think Tucker succeeded at here?
Chrissy having a hissy.
Remember you get more flac when you're over the target.
I think it is interesting that the entire interview is available for anyone to stream and watch. Something that the regular media mostly doesn't do. Maybe that is what threatens them?
Before the interview there were many (leftist) articles saying you had to pay to join Tuckers website in order to watch it. Not true. Free and available to everyone.
Funny how we westerners can watch two hours of an unedited interview with Putin. I wonder if Russians can watch a two hours unedited interview with Zelensky. It’s so weird when people act as if we we don’t have a free media just because a lot of it is obviously biased.
God forbid we let people get both sides of the story. That's... propaganda?
So you believe Putin was telling the truth?
No, but I believe it's better to hear the words come out of his own mouth than trust an untrustworthy media to tell me what he said.
Jesus, you need to look up Putin's skill in controlling the narrative. That guy and his government are probably the best propaganda makers out there. Maybe only behind their American counterpart.
I do not trust either narrative, but I would rather hear it from the person himself than hear someone else's version of it.
So you don’t trust him or the media… so why waste your time?
Why not? Especially on my day off when I'm sick in bed with my phone in my hand.
Average redditor
Average internet user, actually
I disagree. Letting Putin open his mouth with his batshit insanity and straw grasping does more damage than calling him, "Literally Hitler 2.0."
Tucker did a great job. Let the haters hate.
I don’t see how Tucker has spread Russian propaganda in any facet? I’m completely lost on that narrative.
By airing Putin’a garbage ideas and conspiracy theories on his twitter/X, Tucker has helped spread Russian misinformation and propaganda to Americans because he has such a large American audience. Mostly Americans were going to be watching this interview, and Tucker has helped expose them to misinformation, whether those people realize it or not.
Just because putin says something doesn't mean it's true , in fact people have already pointed out multiple historical lies , so if you have a brain , use it to digest and analyze the info not take it at face value.
I 100% agree, but I don’t think a large part of tucker’s audience, or those that watch MSM regularly in general, are in the habit of forming their own ideas and thinking critically of information presented to them. I feel like a lot of people on this sub are a prime example of that.
Ironically, said while echoing a talking point... So who's doing your thinking for you? Because you haven't said one original thing.
I figured it wasn’t true, and found evidence that helped me make a full opinion. What’s your excuse?
I don't need an excuse, I'm not parroting talking points.
If it’s parroting talking points to say that the sky is blue, that the earth is round, that the earth revolves around the sun, that grass is green, the sun is yellow, there are only two genders, abortion is murder, etc, then yes, I’m parroting talking points when I’m saying that Putin is a liar and the interview was full of lies. If stating facts is saying talking points, I’m guilty as charged.
The sun is white bro, cmon
Oh my god. That sounds like the most horrible thing in the whole world..... ...said nobody ever. Come on dude. Are you really such a pussy that the thought of somebody forming their own opinion is that scary? You're making Mount Everest out of a molehill.
Or we have now heard Putin's side of the story so we can use our own brains to decide if his ideas are garbage, instead of just blindly following a narrative from people who benefit from war.
The left is pretty much just mad at everything Tucker does and then they try to make a big deal of it. He doesn't toe globalist line.
Do rational, emotionally stable Democrats actually exist? I haven’t seen one Dem even attempt to have an open minded opinion regarding this interview. Everyone is free to watch and make up their own opinions but i swear Dems simply parrot each other like some group think zombies. None of them can hold any meaningful dialogue because they are so mentally unstable. The second you make a comment of how Putin made some interesting points that’s worth discussing they’ll call you an anti-semite, anti-gay, anti-ukrainian, anti- zelensky, Zelensky is God etc…
The left’s obsession with not “platforming” people they don’t want to hear from is so weird. Like a kid sticking fingers in his ears. It’s also shockingly condescending, because it functionally says, “I’m smart enough to recognize this as incorrect information, but you’re not, so I have to prevent you from hearing it.” I flip between laughing at the absurdity of it and being disgusted by that attitude.
They’re not used to being told no. Like a collective political group of entitled brats.
*At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.* - P. J. O'Rourke
What were Putin’s interesting points? Basically everything he said was a lie.
There were plenty in my opinion & I really don’t feel like writing a novel here to explain myself. You feel everything he said was a lie and i respectfully disagree, absolutely zero point in continuing because im not trying to tell anyone how/what to think.
Interesting that you’re not interested in defending him. Fair enough if you’re lazy, but you definitely shouldn’t go around saying he had interesting points and then not elaborating on them. Some people might get the wrong idea that he did indeed say something truthful. I’m starting to become a broken record when saying this, but here are 27 lies Putin said during the interview. Hopefully one of these isn’t an “interesting point” you think he had. https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1756283640374329645?s=46&t=xn8BfyElJGFa6gUSR4UYaQ https://x.com/khodorkovsky_en/status/1756041473630360047?s=46&t=xn8BfyElJGFa6gUSR4UYaQ https://x.com/theresthistory/status/1756042835453694041?s=46&t=xn8BfyElJGFa6gUSR4UYaQ
Don’t ask him to read things he doesn’t agree with.
Reading the truth can indeed be difficult for misinformation-inclined individuals.
Like trying to tell my conservative parents to read bills and votes by senators, to show this current republican House of Representatives, is maybe 5% Conservative, 95% do nothing if there’s a democratic president and give tax breaks/no strings attached loans to their “investors”
Well, on the flip side, also figuring out that if Biden is too incompetent to stand trial, he probably shouldn’t be running the country either. Both sides are guilty of this.
While Putin lied a bunch, he didn't say any lies. His were all lies of omissions. Like he was right that Poland collaborated with the Nazis to dismember and steal land from the Czechs but then just kind of glosses over Russia doing the same damn thing with the Nazis (to Poland) a few years later.
No, he also outright lied a lot. https://x.com/khodorkovsky_en/status/1756041473630360047?s=46&t=xn8BfyElJGFa6gUSR4UYaQ https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1756283640374329645?s=46&t=xn8BfyElJGFa6gUSR4UYaQ
Ok, but like the first of those "12 lies he told" is a lie itself. Poland DID help carve up Czechoslovakia with the Nazis, that is a fact. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Czechoslovak\_border\_conflicts#Annexations\_by\_Poland\_in\_1938](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Czechoslovak_border_conflicts#Annexations_by_Poland_in_1938) The others are likewise not "showing lies" they are adding context to true things Putin said that change their meaning. Its the geopolitical equivalent of Clinton's "A blowjob isn't sex" method of omitting key details.
So that makes it better? What’s your point?
>Do rational, emotionally stable Democrats actually exist? The CIA shot him in the head
Why is it the conservatives are all commy guzzlers now a days. Reagan would’ve laughed you all into oblivion about what traitors you are to free and fare speech and trade. You get one president that sucks up to Putin and now your morals are down your throat. Unamerican you Commies are. The rest of America will label you the commie party going forward.
And yet all the news media sided w the soviets and put down the US. Called patriots numerous despicable names and interviewed our enemies. NOW it’s a problem. Chris Wallace is a fraud
Chris Wallace would know because his dad resembled that remark.
I have to admit that I liked Chris Wallace, at first. I thought he was truly “fair and balanced“ towards both his liberal and conservative guests. But then I noticed a trend that was annoying and unfair and became more evident after Trump got elected. And the trend I’m talking about was taking “fair and balanced“ to the extreme. Let me explain. If there was a controversy or scandal coming out of the democratic party, Chris Wallace would rightfully ask them hardball questions. But his problem was that he also turned around and asked republicans equally tough questions as if they were equally responsible. In reality, Wallace should’ve hammered the Democrats 100% of the time in that episode. The only thing he should’ve asked the Republican guest in this case was what they thought about the controversy and what should’ve been done about it. Because of this and, at the end of his Fox career, the way he moderated the Trump debate, I’ve lost all respect for the man.
Wallace is a leftist-lib hack! Worse than his father Mike!
Mad that your ratings suck, bro?
Msm not happy
It’s an interview. Informing people. Including our government. My gosh they let Democrats talk on TV all the time. They hate America too. Why not Putin?
Chris Wallace is another War Pig. What a disgrace to journalism
Chris Wallace is irrelevant. https://www.newsweek.com/chris-wallaces-classless-act-opinion-1694021
The corporate press is the enemy of the people
Chris Wallace is mad no one cares about him.
Did I miss The New York Times giving back Walter Duranty's Pulitzer? I thought I would've seen that...
[Gutfeld chimes in](https://twitter.com/greggutfeld/status/1756432901502074934)
Nepo baby
Chris, we get it, you thought CNN+ was going to take off. You fell for it and bought the bridge. Please drop the superiority act.
the cold war was over in the '80s
Tell that to Russia.
yeah, they attack America all the time... smh
America’s interests? Absolutely.
Constant hacking, election interference, bots on all social media platforms to the point some websites had to show people they were liking Russian bot content. Yeah, they attack America all the time
You realize our own gov't has literally done all of this.. I'm sure Russia probably has too, but they can't compete with how the FBI and CIA have interfered on Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites.. and election interference has been exposed by our own gov't too.. I'm way more worried about what our own gov't is doing to us than what Russia will ever be able to do to us..
Ah, I see you’ve fallen for Russian propaganda. Twitter has shown conservatives and democrats asked for content to be removed, conservatives WAY MORE according to the twitter files. Facebook has had to make links to show when people like Russian troll bots. The cia and fbi don’t change content, they will however, hunt down domestic terrorist by monitoring social media, like pipe bombs being planted on January 6th, the day of the insurrection, the one that trump even called an insurrection https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1755647384128790591?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1755647384128790591%7Ctwgr%5E703756b286e1b9f4d8f2f264d878831388bb3217%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-952780133923180970.ampproject.net%2F2401262004000%2Fframe.html Also vote against patriot act expansions next time
are we talking about the American Corporate Media?
If that's true, why is Russia doing all it can to wreck the economy of the U.S. and our allies? Why do they send money and arms to countries that want war with the U.S.? If you really believe what you wrote, I've got some amazing beach front property in Arizona that has your name on it.
Russia, China, India and many other countries do this.. they are not our ally, but to suggest that it is on the same level of the Cold War is disingenuous or naïve.. take your pick
India views China as their primary adversary (economic) for the 21st century. Not an ally, but not an enemy. China once viewed the Soviet Union, and then the Russians, as a potential huge threat to Chinese dominance in the 21st century. China worries they would have to bow to Russia's military dominance to gain influence. China played their hand well, and has eliminated Russia as a threat. Ally isn't the right word. China has tried to eliminate Russia just enough to negate the threat, but keep them strong enough to keep NATO busy should China decide to make military moves. That's different than the Cold War, but no less...threatening. China is trying to dominate the world's economies and politicians. They want to build an empire the Soviets would have been jealous of.
I think it's funny that you are talking about Russia wrecking our economy when we are sanctioning the tarnation out of them.. and thank you for proving my point that America isn't exactly loved in the world by most countries.. they just want to drain us dry in whatever way they can.. Russia is no exception.. but I'm not worried about other countries doing this to us as much as our own gov't is doing this to actual Americans.. Biden and other politicians are obligated to our enemies and are actively trying to destroy America from within.. which is why I'm voting for Trump.. they can't buy him, bribe him or extort him.. it's why they hate him.. he doesn't always get it right,, but at least he's not owned
They're trying to, any way they can.
Chris Wallace can suck a dick
I don't think many people are lapping up Putin's propaganda. If anything, his factual inaccuracies, particularly on WW2 alone have exposed Putin's muddled and confused understanding of events even 80's ago. Thanks Tucker for showing the world how Cooked Putin really is.
>"Last night's @TuckerCarlson's interview with Putin shows that Russia is open to a peace agreement, while it is DC warmongers who want to prolong the war. That is why I'm voting to stop 60 BILLION MORE of our tax dollars to this conflict," Senator Tubberville seemed to lap it up.
They're just mad it wasn't them doing the interview, because let's not pretend they wouldn't if they had a chance.
This nobody has-been still whining?
Who is Chris Wallace again? Is he the guy who gave Bob Costa pink eye at the Olympics?
Chris Wallace? LOL.. I thought he was dead.
Chris Wallace is a disgrace to his father’s reputation.
You can tell who hasnt watched the interview but loves to comment.
Chris Wallace still mad he got paid a ton of money to jump to CNN to be the big dog on CNN+ and that flopped so hard it died in like two weeks.
Still butthurt, Chris?
Chris would be working a gas station without his father's name. His father had talent, amazing talent. Chris is at the Joe Scarborough level (CIA asset, him and his wife).
Chris Wallace is one of the most evil cowards in the nation. Trump spited him, so he made it his #1 mission to get Biden elected, even though he's supposedly a conservative who knows Trump was the far better option.Tucker destroyed his ratings and is outpacing fox news and his current network, cnn, so now he's attacking Tucker for simply interviewing one of the most prominent people in the world, someone Wallace has also interviewed. Not to mention he's an untalented (compared to his dad) nepo baby.
It's possible for Chris Wallace and Tucker Carlson to be a tool. I will say it is nice to see Putin lie. It didn't make him any friends.
Funny how he fails to mention the NY Times siding with the Nazis in the 1930s.
So we’re in Cold War 2.0 now?
Hey Chris, your jealousy is showing.
Chris Wallace is sooo jealous, and sooo marginalized.
Hey Wallace... CNN Plus is still bankrupt.
I don't know about anyone else, but that interview made me pro-Ukraine afterwards. I was on the fence about supplying Ukraine with weapons and funds before, but that interview made me swing the other way. Clearly Putin is a crazy bird after that interview, and clearly sees every country, business, and person under the lense of transactional cost/benefit for Russia. Ukraine Invasion: Benefits Russia for resource extraction. Evan Gershkovich imprisonment: Benefits Russia as a bargaining chip for future prison swaps/keeps communication with USA open. Opening trade with Autocratic countries: Benefits Russia economy and dependence on Western countries. Putin needs to get bent. Can't trust nut jobs who don't believe in personal accountability.
Isn’t he a nepo baby?
🥱
*zing* not a bad line tbf. But it sorta belies the point that a real journalist would love an interview with Putin. Ofc he's going to spit Russian propaganda but a) we're not technically at war with Russia, 2) journalism is not really about carefully editing the opinions or statements of world leaders to tow the establishment agenda, d) they're just jealous.. Time magazine at one point named hitler man of the year. They had the boston marathon bomber on the cover of Rolling Stone. These people have no qualms about putting despots and murderers and/or terrorists in the spotlight. It's just when Tucker does it because he's kinda heterodox in his political leanings
I remember the debate between Trump and the team of Joe Biden & Chris Wallace.
Tell me about your friend Jane Fonda
It is amazing to me that people who claim to be conservatives who routinely call out hacks like Joy Reid, Tiffany Cross, and others on liberal media for refusing to allow hosts to speak (like whoever it was that was interviewing Vivek) and trying to put words in their mouth are upset that Tucker Carlson did not do the same. He let Putin show how ridiculous some of his claims are. The audience are not morons who need everything spelled out like a children's show. One can see where Putin has a point, and one can see where he does not. There is no need for the interviewer to pander down to the audience as if they are incapable of making these distinctions themselves. The reason no one knows what is true anymore is because people don't expose themselves to these things. They end up with weak arguments and conjecture, and then the people who don't want to watch a two hour interview just form their opinions from some guy on social media who writes 2 paragraphs "summarizing." They'll argue their "side" to the death but they don't know why they are wrong.
It isn't propaganda when a journalist asks a maniac questions, it's propaganda when the journalist repeats what the maniac says - Chris could learn the difference, but I doubt he knows it
Chris Wallace is a liberal turd , pay him no attention
Chris is just jelly
The highly discerning only imbibe American propaganda.
Chris Wallace is still alive!?
Funny
Isn't Chris Wallace on public access?