Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1997, CNN sends Peter Arnett to interview Osama Bin Laden who had declared jihad against America.

Tucker is no Peter Arnett.

Should there be a list of journalists favored by the government to do these interviews? I'm trying to understand the logistics of this double standard.

Tucker, in his own legal arguments, is not a journalist. In his own legal arguments, he is an entertainer.

This argument is lame and tired. Because his legal team used a strategy to win a law suit and said he was basically just being satirical instead of defaming someone he can never, ever, for the rest of human history interview someone in a journalistic capacity? You know what you’re saying is childish, lame, and petty. Stop.

Chris Hayes and Joy Reid aren’t journalists either by your logic, and no one would call for them to get sanctioned or targeted by our government for interviewing a foreign leader who isn’t in good standing with the US. You all come across as hollow, anti-Democratic fascists to be honest.

I’ve skimmed through the interview and the one thing that comes through is how sad this country is that the only people we have running for president are completely outmatched intellectually by Putin. I can’t even imagine how foolish Trump and Biden look next to Xi Jinping in closed door meetings. The rest of the world must think we’re a joke.

Anything to make this okay for yourself, I guess. Chris Hayes and Joy Reid aren’t in Russia against the advice of the government. They haven’t claimed that they’re not journalists in a court of law. Of course they haven’t been sued for defamation in a court of law either.

And congratulations on your skimming yielding one of the goals of Tucker’s propaganda, and super cute “both sides.” You’re a Republican and you’ll vote for Trump. You fancy yourself a deep thinker, independent of outside influences, but really your mind is already made up about everything. There’s no changing your thinking.

So journalists should only interview people who the government gives them clearance to interview? OMG you sound like a complete totalitarian monster. We still live in a democracy with freedom of the press. You do know that, don’t you?!

A lot of people’s true fascist colors are shining through in this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1997, CNN sends Peter Arnett to interview Osama Bin Laden who had declared jihad against America.

Except Peter Arnett wasn’t a lapdog with an obvious plot to dissuade Congress from funding a nation under attack like Tucker is.

Tucker’s lawyers argued he is an “entertainer” not a journalist in court. Tucker has publicly chastised US support for Ukraine in many prior examples. It’s a joke. He got owned in the interview anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1997, CNN sends Peter Arnett to interview Osama Bin Laden who had declared jihad against America.

Tucker is no Peter Arnett.

Should there be a list of journalists favored by the government to do these interviews? I'm trying to understand the logistics of this double standard.

Tucker, in his own legal arguments, is not a journalist. In his own legal arguments, he is an entertainer.

This argument is lame and tired. Because his legal team used a strategy to win a law suit and said he was basically just being satirical instead of defaming someone he can never, ever, for the rest of human history interview someone in a journalistic capacity? You know what you’re saying is childish, lame, and petty. Stop.

Chris Hayes and Joy Reid aren’t journalists either by your logic, and no one would call for them to get sanctioned or targeted by our government for interviewing a foreign leader who isn’t in good standing with the US. You all come across as hollow, anti-Democratic fascists to be honest.

I’ve skimmed through the interview and the one thing that comes through is how sad this country is that the only people we have running for president are completely outmatched intellectually by Putin. I can’t even imagine how foolish Trump and Biden look next to Xi Jinping in closed door meetings. The rest of the world must think we’re a joke.

Anything to make this okay for yourself, I guess. Chris Hayes and Joy Reid aren’t in Russia against the advice of the government. They haven’t claimed that they’re not journalists in a court of law. Of course they haven’t been sued for defamation in a court of law either.

And congratulations on your skimming yielding one of the goals of Tucker’s propaganda, and super cute “both sides.” You’re a Republican and you’ll vote for Trump. You fancy yourself a deep thinker, independent of outside influences, but really your mind is already made up about everything. There’s no changing your thinking.

So journalists should only interview people who the government gives them clearance to interview? OMG you sound like a complete totalitarian monster. We still live in a democracy with freedom of the press. You do know that, don’t you?!

A lot of people’s true fascist colors are shining through in this thread.

DP. Aren't you bothered at all by the fact that actual journalists from around the world (CNN, BBC, etc) have asked for interviews with Putin and have been turned down, but somehow Tucker was the only Western journalist that Putin agreed to be interviewed by? Of all the journalists from the West that could have interviewed Putin, why did he chose Carlson?

Also, have you thought about the timing of the interview? Another round of funding for Ukraine is currently at stake at a time when support for Ukraine is waning, particularly among Republicans. "The Kremlin will be hoping that, by doing an interview with a prominent conservative TV presenter, Republican lawmakers will be susceptible to Moscow's narratives usually only parroted within domestic Russian media. Carlson has also had a long and mutually beneficial relationship with Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, who has expressed scepticism about supporting Ukraine. Carlson's platform offers an opportunity for the Kremlin to reach a wider, potentially sympathetic and heavily conservative audience in the US. In the past, the former Fox News host has launched scathing attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and allied himself with Mr Putin's drive to embrace so-called "traditional values," a phrase which has included attacks on LGBT people in Russia."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-68244602

There's "freedom of speech" and then there's propaganda. I think most of us--at least those of us on the left--know the difference.

Ah, the I know it when I see it argument. Educate the consumers, don't control the content.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1997, CNN sends Peter Arnett to interview Osama Bin Laden who had declared jihad against America.

Tucker is no Peter Arnett.

Should there be a list of journalists favored by the government to do these interviews? I'm trying to understand the logistics of this double standard.

Tucker, in his own legal arguments, is not a journalist. In his own legal arguments, he is an entertainer.

Should we ban entertainers from doing interviews with American adversaries? I'm trying to understand if you are opposed to this on aesthetic or political grounds.

No, you understand that your party is engaging in treason and that upsets you, so you seek to get into nitpicky arguments in an attempt to place the blame outside yourself rather than accept that your support for the GOP is what enables their treason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1997, CNN sends Peter Arnett to interview Osama Bin Laden who had declared jihad against America.

Tucker is no Peter Arnett.

Should there be a list of journalists favored by the government to do these interviews? I'm trying to understand the logistics of this double standard.

Tucker, in his own legal arguments, is not a journalist. In his own legal arguments, he is an entertainer.

This argument is lame and tired. Because his legal team used a strategy to win a law suit and said he was basically just being satirical instead of defaming someone he can never, ever, for the rest of human history interview someone in a journalistic capacity? You know what you’re saying is childish, lame, and petty. Stop.

Chris Hayes and Joy Reid aren’t journalists either by your logic, and no one would call for them to get sanctioned or targeted by our government for interviewing a foreign leader who isn’t in good standing with the US. You all come across as hollow, anti-Democratic fascists to be honest.

I’ve skimmed through the interview and the one thing that comes through is how sad this country is that the only people we have running for president are completely outmatched intellectually by Putin. I can’t even imagine how foolish Trump and Biden look next to Xi Jinping in closed door meetings. The rest of the world must think we’re a joke.

Anything to make this okay for yourself, I guess. Chris Hayes and Joy Reid aren’t in Russia against the advice of the government. They haven’t claimed that they’re not journalists in a court of law. Of course they haven’t been sued for defamation in a court of law either.

And congratulations on your skimming yielding one of the goals of Tucker’s propaganda, and super cute “both sides.” You’re a Republican and you’ll vote for Trump. You fancy yourself a deep thinker, independent of outside influences, but really your mind is already made up about everything. There’s no changing your thinking.

So journalists should only interview people who the government gives them clearance to interview? OMG you sound like a complete totalitarian monster. We still live in a democracy with freedom of the press. You do know that, don’t you?!

A lot of people’s true fascist colors are shining through in this thread.

DP. Aren't you bothered at all by the fact that actual journalists from around the world (CNN, BBC, etc) have asked for interviews with Putin and have been turned down, but somehow Tucker was the only Western journalist that Putin agreed to be interviewed by? Of all the journalists from the West that could have interviewed Putin, why did he chose Carlson?

Also, have you thought about the timing of the interview? Another round of funding for Ukraine is currently at stake at a time when support for Ukraine is waning, particularly among Republicans. "The Kremlin will be hoping that, by doing an interview with a prominent conservative TV presenter, Republican lawmakers will be susceptible to Moscow's narratives usually only parroted within domestic Russian media. Carlson has also had a long and mutually beneficial relationship with Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, who has expressed scepticism about supporting Ukraine. Carlson's platform offers an opportunity for the Kremlin to reach a wider, potentially sympathetic and heavily conservative audience in the US. In the past, the former Fox News host has launched scathing attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and allied himself with Mr Putin's drive to embrace so-called "traditional values," a phrase which has included attacks on LGBT people in Russia."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-68244602

There's "freedom of speech" and then there's propaganda. I think most of us--at least those of us on the left--know the difference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1997, CNN sends Peter Arnett to interview Osama Bin Laden who had declared jihad against America.

Tucker is no Peter Arnett.

Should there be a list of journalists favored by the government to do these interviews? I'm trying to understand the logistics of this double standard.

Tucker, in his own legal arguments, is not a journalist. In his own legal arguments, he is an entertainer.

This argument is lame and tired. Because his legal team used a strategy to win a law suit and said he was basically just being satirical instead of defaming someone he can never, ever, for the rest of human history interview someone in a journalistic capacity? You know what you’re saying is childish, lame, and petty. Stop.

Chris Hayes and Joy Reid aren’t journalists either by your logic, and no one would call for them to get sanctioned or targeted by our government for interviewing a foreign leader who isn’t in good standing with the US. You all come across as hollow, anti-Democratic fascists to be honest.

I’ve skimmed through the interview and the one thing that comes through is how sad this country is that the only people we have running for president are completely outmatched intellectually by Putin. I can’t even imagine how foolish Trump and Biden look next to Xi Jinping in closed door meetings. The rest of the world must think we’re a joke.

Invading Ukraine has to be one of the worst decisions any leader of any country has ever made. If that is what his amazing intellect gets him, no thanks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1997, CNN sends Peter Arnett to interview Osama Bin Laden who had declared jihad against America.

Tucker is no Peter Arnett.

Should there be a list of journalists favored by the government to do these interviews? I'm trying to understand the logistics of this double standard.

Tucker, in his own legal arguments, is not a journalist. In his own legal arguments, he is an entertainer.

This argument is lame and tired. Because his legal team used a strategy to win a law suit and said he was basically just being satirical instead of defaming someone he can never, ever, for the rest of human history interview someone in a journalistic capacity? You know what you’re saying is childish, lame, and petty. Stop.

Chris Hayes and Joy Reid aren’t journalists either by your logic, and no one would call for them to get sanctioned or targeted by our government for interviewing a foreign leader who isn’t in good standing with the US. You all come across as hollow, anti-Democratic fascists to be honest.

I’ve skimmed through the interview and the one thing that comes through is how sad this country is that the only people we have running for president are completely outmatched intellectually by Putin. I can’t even imagine how foolish Trump and Biden look next to Xi Jinping in closed door meetings. The rest of the world must think we’re a joke.

Anything to make this okay for yourself, I guess. Chris Hayes and Joy Reid aren’t in Russia against the advice of the government. They haven’t claimed that they’re not journalists in a court of law. Of course they haven’t been sued for defamation in a court of law either.

And congratulations on your skimming yielding one of the goals of Tucker’s propaganda, and super cute “both sides.” You’re a Republican and you’ll vote for Trump. You fancy yourself a deep thinker, independent of outside influences, but really your mind is already made up about everything. There’s no changing your thinking.

So journalists should only interview people who the government gives them clearance to interview? OMG you sound like a complete totalitarian monster. We still live in a democracy with freedom of the press. You do know that, don’t you?!

A lot of people’s true fascist colors are shining through in this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1997, CNN sends Peter Arnett to interview Osama Bin Laden who had declared jihad against America.

Tucker is no Peter Arnett.

Should there be a list of journalists favored by the government to do these interviews? I'm trying to understand the logistics of this double standard.

Tucker, in his own legal arguments, is not a journalist. In his own legal arguments, he is an entertainer.

This argument is lame and tired. Because his legal team used a strategy to win a law suit and said he was basically just being satirical instead of defaming someone he can never, ever, for the rest of human history interview someone in a journalistic capacity? You know what you’re saying is childish, lame, and petty. Stop.

Chris Hayes and Joy Reid aren’t journalists either by your logic, and no one would call for them to get sanctioned or targeted by our government for interviewing a foreign leader who isn’t in good standing with the US. You all come across as hollow, anti-Democratic fascists to be honest.

I’ve skimmed through the interview and the one thing that comes through is how sad this country is that the only people we have running for president are completely outmatched intellectually by Putin. I can’t even imagine how foolish Trump and Biden look next to Xi Jinping in closed door meetings. The rest of the world must think we’re a joke.

Anything to make this okay for yourself, I guess. Chris Hayes and Joy Reid aren’t in Russia against the advice of the government. They haven’t claimed that they’re not journalists in a court of law. Of course they haven’t been sued for defamation in a court of law either.

And congratulations on your skimming yielding one of the goals of Tucker’s propaganda, and super cute “both sides.” You’re a Republican and you’ll vote for Trump. You fancy yourself a deep thinker, independent of outside influences, but really your mind is already made up about everything. There’s no changing your thinking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1997, CNN sends Peter Arnett to interview Osama Bin Laden who had declared jihad against America.

Tucker is no Peter Arnett.

Should there be a list of journalists favored by the government to do these interviews? I'm trying to understand the logistics of this double standard.

Tucker, in his own legal arguments, is not a journalist. In his own legal arguments, he is an entertainer.

Should we ban entertainers from doing interviews with American adversaries? I'm trying to understand if you are opposed to this on aesthetic or political grounds.

No, you understand that your party is engaging in treason and that upsets you, so you seek to get into nitpicky arguments in an attempt to place the blame outside yourself rather than accept that your support for the GOP is what enables their treason.

Anonymous wrote:1997, CNN sends Peter Arnett to interview Osama Bin Laden who had declared jihad against America.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1997, CNN sends Peter Arnett to interview Osama Bin Laden who had declared jihad against America.

Tucker is no Peter Arnett.

Should there be a list of journalists favored by the government to do these interviews? I'm trying to understand the logistics of this double standard.

Tucker, in his own legal arguments, is not a journalist. In his own legal arguments, he is an entertainer.

This argument is lame and tired. Because his legal team used a strategy to win a law suit and said he was basically just being satirical instead of defaming someone he can never, ever, for the rest of human history interview someone in a journalistic capacity? You know what you’re saying is childish, lame, and petty. Stop.

Chris Hayes and Joy Reid aren’t journalists either by your logic, and no one would call for them to get sanctioned or targeted by our government for interviewing a foreign leader who isn’t in good standing with the US. You all come across as hollow, anti-Democratic fascists to be honest.

I’ve skimmed through the interview and the one thing that comes through is how sad this country is that the only people we have running for president are completely outmatched intellectually by Putin. I can’t even imagine how foolish Trump and Biden look next to Xi Jinping in closed door meetings. The rest of the world must think we’re a joke.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1997, CNN sends Peter Arnett to interview Osama Bin Laden who had declared jihad against America.

Tucker is no Peter Arnett.

Should there be a list of journalists favored by the government to do these interviews? I'm trying to understand the logistics of this double standard.

Tucker, in his own legal arguments, is not a journalist. In his own legal arguments, he is an entertainer.

This argument is lame and tired. Because his legal team used a strategy to win a law suit and said he was basically just being satirical instead of defaming someone he can never, ever, for the rest of human history interview someone in a journalistic capacity? You know what you’re saying is childish, lame, and petty. Stop.

Chris Hayes and Joy Reid aren’t journalists either by your logic, and no one would call for them to get sanctioned or targeted by our government for interviewing a foreign leader who isn’t in good standing with the US. You all come across as hollow, anti-Democratic fascists to be honest.

I’ve skimmed through the interview and the one thing that comes through is how sad this country is that the only people we have running for president are completely outmatched intellectually by Putin. I can’t even imagine how foolish Trump and Biden look next to Xi Jinping in closed door meetings. The rest of the world must think we’re a joke.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1997, CNN sends Peter Arnett to interview Osama Bin Laden who had declared jihad against America.

Tucker is no Peter Arnett.

Should there be a list of journalists favored by the government to do these interviews? I'm trying to understand the logistics of this double standard.

Tucker, in his own legal arguments, is not a journalist. In his own legal arguments, he is an entertainer.

Should we ban entertainers from doing interviews with American adversaries? I'm trying to understand if you are opposed to this on aesthetic or political grounds.