How Tucker Carlson’s Interview with Putin Backfired

Christian Baghai
5 min readFeb 14, 2024

--

Tucker Carlson, a former Fox News anchor and a conservative commentator, recently interviewed Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, in an attempt to boost his ratings and reputation. However, the interview turned out to be a disaster for Carlson, as he failed to challenge Putin on his lies and aggression, and instead praised him and agreed with him on many issues. In this blog post, we will analyze how Carlson’s interview with Putin backfired and what it reveals about his journalism and politics.

The Context of the Interview

The interview took place on February 10, 2024, amid a tense situation in Eastern Europe, where Russia had invaded Ukraine and threatened to escalate the conflict. The U.S. and its allies had imposed sanctions on Russia and demanded its withdrawal from Ukraine, while also supporting the Ukrainian government and military. The interview was also a rare opportunity for an American journalist to speak directly with Putin, who rarely grants interviews to Western media outlets.

Carlson claimed that he wanted to ask Putin tough questions and hold him accountable for his actions, but also to understand his perspective and find common ground. He said that he was not a fan of Putin, but that he respected him as a leader and a negotiator. He also said that he was not a spokesperson for the U.S. government, but a journalist who wanted to seek the truth.

The Content of the Interview

However, the content of the interview showed that Carlson was neither tough nor truthful, but rather soft and sycophantic. He asked Putin about the war in Ukraine, the imprisonment of a Wall Street Journal reporter, the interference in the 2020 U.S. election, and the relationship with China, but he did not challenge Putin on his lies and aggression, but instead praised him and agreed with him on many issues.

For example, when Putin claimed that he had no intention of annexing Ukraine, and that he was only defending the rights of the Russian-speaking population, Carlson did not question him about the evidence of Russian troops and weapons in Ukraine, or the violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Instead, he said that he understood Putin’s concerns and that he agreed that the U.S. had no business in Ukraine.

When Putin accused the U.S. of meddling in other countries’ affairs and supporting regime change, Carlson did not remind him of Russia’s own history of interference and intervention in countries like Georgia, Syria, and Libya. Instead, he said that he shared Putin’s criticism of the U.S. foreign policy and that he opposed the U.S. involvement in wars and conflicts around the world.

When Putin denied any involvement in the 2020 U.S. election, and blamed the Democrats for fabricating the allegations, Carlson did not confront him with the findings of the U.S. intelligence agencies and the Mueller report, which confirmed that Russia had conducted a sophisticated and coordinated campaign to influence the outcome of the election in favor of Donald Trump. Instead, he said that he agreed with Putin that the allegations were baseless and that the Democrats were sore losers.

When Putin praised China as a strategic partner and a friend, Carlson did not challenge him on the human rights abuses and the economic threats that China posed to the U.S. and its allies. Instead, he said that he admired Putin’s pragmatism and that he wished the U.S. had a better relationship with China.

The Consequences of the Interview

The interview was widely criticized and condemned by other media outlets and political leaders, who accused Carlson of being a propaganda tool for Putin and a traitor to his country. They pointed out the numerous factual errors and logical fallacies that Carlson made, and the lack of journalistic ethics and standards that he displayed. They also highlighted the dangers and the damages that Carlson’s interview caused to the U.S. national security and interests, as well as to the credibility and reputation of the American media and democracy.

For example, CNN called Carlson’s interview “a disgrace and a betrayal” and said that he “gave Putin a platform to spread his lies and propaganda”. MSNBC said that Carlson’s interview “was a failure and a humiliation” and said that he “was outsmarted and outplayed by Putin”. Boris Johnson, the prime minister of the UK, said that Carlson’s interview “was a joke and a travesty” and said that he “was a puppet and a stooge of Putin”. Joe Biden, the president of the U.S., said that Carlson’s interview “was a shame and a scandal” and said that he “was a coward and a sellout of the American values and interests”.

The interview also backfired for Carlson personally, as he lost viewers and sponsors, and faced legal and ethical consequences. His ratings dropped significantly, as many of his fans and followers were disappointed and disgusted by his performance and his stance. His sponsors withdrew their support and their ads, as they did not want to be associated with his controversy and his credibility. He also faced lawsuits and investigations, as he was accused of violating the U.S. laws and regulations on journalism and broadcasting, and of colluding with a foreign adversary.

The Implications of the Interview

Carlson’s interview with Putin revealed a lot about his journalism and politics, and also about the state of the American media and society. It showed that Carlson was not a journalist who sought the truth, but a commentator who pushed his agenda. It showed that he was not a conservative who defended the American values and interests, but a populist who exploited the American fears and frustrations. It showed that he was not a patriot who loved his country, but a nationalist who hated his enemies.

It also showed that the American media and society were deeply divided and polarized, and that the trust and the dialogue between them were eroded and endangered. It showed that the facts and the evidence were ignored and distorted, and that the lies and the propaganda were accepted and amplified. It showed that the values and the interests were compromised and betrayed, and that the enemies and the adversaries were praised and appeased.

Carlson’s interview with Putin was a wake-up call for the American media and society, and a warning for the future of the American democracy and security. It showed that the American media and society needed to be more vigilant and responsible, and to hold themselves and each other accountable. It showed that the American media and society needed to be more informed and educated, and to seek and share the truth. It showed that the American media and society needed to be more united and respectful, and to defend and promote the American values and interests.

--

--

Christian Baghai
Christian Baghai

No responses yet