Tucker Carlson has the largest audience for any social media platform. His interviews are watched by more viewers than anyone else. As such, he has a responsibility to be better prepared.
I am impressed with the level of growth Tucker has shown over the past 15 years or so. I remember clearly agreeing with Jon Stewart when he called Tucker an example of everything that is wrong with TV media (I forget his exact words). I thought he was just uninformed and kind kind of a prick to boot! But he seems to have actually done some self-reflection and I admire that a great deal because it is so rare these days. He may not be all the way there yet, but at least he realizes that most of everything he ever learned working in mainstream media is bullshit. Speaking as a former mainstream news reporter (CBS, ABC, CNN) I know that is a hard thing to do. Reporting the truth is the primary duty of every journalist, but the threats associated with it are very real and terrifying. No wonder so many mainstream "journalists" (read=stenographers) just hold on to that cushy paycheck and know where not to stray...
Tucker Carlson definitely has a wide ranging platform. The problem for him is that Americans have been so brainwashed against Russia and Iran that he needs to use that influence to wake Americans up to the fact that these two countries are not their enemies. It is encouraging to see that he is at least trying to give them a platform to show who they are to Americans. It is a beginning of educating Americans, and with more preparation, potential future Interviews will have real value.
I disagree with Scott on this one. I heard both of the interviews he critiqued, and didn't have the same reaction. Perhaps it's because I'm informed about these topics, but I didn't need a hand-holding introduction to geopolitics (which Scott seemed to want for the uninformed masses).
On the other hand, I felt there was something off about the questions. They seemed "too cute" --too framed for an uninformed person looking for a response to the sensationalism of the past month. Asking questions about delicate negotiations--that seemed coarse and unworthy to me. I was glad to hear from both Presidents.
I understand Scotts irritation BUT the key issue here is we are talking about two entirely different cultures. What the USA (and the UK and the whole of the Anglo-Saxon world) suffers from is an internalised belief that what they stand for and believe is implicitly superior to every other country and is the way to go and the yardstick to measure everyone else against.
Moreover, politicians in the west who are used to this kind of 'soft' interview would have prepared for it witha pre-interview to try and find out what direction it would go in.
What Tucker needs to do is understand that it is not only a different language but a completely different way of looking at the world - and that demands a certain empathy which the west because of its feeling of inate superiority cannot comprehend without a bit of study. This re-inforces the phobias that are inflicted on all perceived 'enemies' of 'the west'.
My ancestors went to Africa genuinely believing they were bringing civilisation to 'the natives'. They were blind because they were culturally trapped in an ideology that they assumed was superior to all others. Today, the west genuinely believes that it is bringing 'democracy' and equality to the world and will impose iot on others regardless - the modern equivalent of 'bringing civilisation to the natives'.
Younger Iranians - I bet - were irritated by the interview with President Masoud Pezeshkian's responses because they are more clued into western culture and would have used different expressions and examples and would say 'Why didn't he say this and make this or that point' that 'western' audiences would relate to more easily. Many speak English (and German) and understand 'the west'.
But this FIRST step of engaging with 'the west's adversaries' is really positive and Tucker Carlson has broken through a barrier and should be congratulated. Imagine if an alien space ship landed - how would he conduct such an interview? From the deep inside of 'western culture' (which is actually an ersatz culture increasingly stripped of human reference points and dominated by consumerism and individualism) I increasingly see its flaws. Tucker has begun that journey and should be supported to continue it because nobody comes ready made and he is on a journey. He gave an opportunity to Iran. It wasn't fully expoited by Iran and Tucker could have helped by being a bit more empathetic and nuanced. But, hell, it's an advance.
Let me give a better example. Look at Gaza. Older Palestinians who speak Arabic and not English and whose conduct revolves around the 'rules' embodied in the Quoran simply don't relate to 'western audiences' - but the younger generation who believe exactly the same things can and do. They can translate morality and politics and the way Palestinians look at the world in a way that people in the western world can relate to. Because I want to understand I read about these views and have come to learn something that I can only whisper even to myself: much of what they say and do is superior morally to our values and the way 'the west' behaves.
Point in Case. If you watch the resistance report put out by the Electronic Intifada by Jon Elmer which tracks the fighting in Gaza you will see the way the combatants think and how motivated they are. Despite this, when they wound 'the enemy' (IDF soldiers) they refuse to fire on the ambulances and helicopters that come to pick the wounded up. Why? Because it is against what is laid down in the Quoran. It baffles Jon Elmer and would any western infantryman - but that is their culture. It used to be part of ours and we have lost it.
I am sad to say that I must agree w/Ritter on this one. Carlson seems still devoted to a collapsing dogma about the US, about US politics, and his sense of history is nearly impossible to discern. Has he studied no history of anywhere?
Agree with Scott to a certain extent. Tucker Carlson has good intentions but it would be better if he interviewed the foreign minister of Iran who is sharper and probably closer to Ayat Khamenei Iran and people like Carlson are brave because Zionists have total control of trump and his cabinet. The loss is American lives and economy if they are still after regime change Nuclear issue is easy to solve as all Iran wanted was to continue uranium for medical and other benign reasons with guarantee of no nuclear bomb and full cooperation with IAEA. Israel will sink USA sooner or later with lot of economic and material loss to USA Hope peace makers prevail and solve the problem by dialogue
Another thoughtful "Rant". Thanks, Scott. Your standards and measures of quality are rooted in truth, honesty and educational value, not a highly praised set of qualities in today's media! That is why we love you!
This was interesting. I haven't viewed the interview, but saw another channel where Candance Owens gave her response to it and she seemed to have been impressed with it, saying she learned somethings she hadn't know before. Maybe it wasn't as bad as Scott seems to think.
I agree with you, Scott, that Tucker's interview with P Putin was weak. This weakness has more to do with the Russian administration's inherent lack of communication sophistication than with Tucker. In his interview with the Iranian politician, Tucker wanted to expose Israel. He succeeded in doing it. Always a pleasure to listen to your rant.
I am impressed with the level of growth Tucker has shown over the past 15 years or so. I remember clearly agreeing with Jon Stewart when he called Tucker an example of everything that is wrong with TV media (I forget his exact words). I thought he was just uninformed and kind kind of a prick to boot! But he seems to have actually done some self-reflection and I admire that a great deal because it is so rare these days. He may not be all the way there yet, but at least he realizes that most of everything he ever learned working in mainstream media is bullshit. Speaking as a former mainstream news reporter (CBS, ABC, CNN) I know that is a hard thing to do. Reporting the truth is the primary duty of every journalist, but the threats associated with it are very real and terrifying. No wonder so many mainstream "journalists" (read=stenographers) just hold on to that cushy paycheck and know where not to stray...
Tucker Carlson definitely has a wide ranging platform. The problem for him is that Americans have been so brainwashed against Russia and Iran that he needs to use that influence to wake Americans up to the fact that these two countries are not their enemies. It is encouraging to see that he is at least trying to give them a platform to show who they are to Americans. It is a beginning of educating Americans, and with more preparation, potential future Interviews will have real value.
I disagree with Scott on this one. I heard both of the interviews he critiqued, and didn't have the same reaction. Perhaps it's because I'm informed about these topics, but I didn't need a hand-holding introduction to geopolitics (which Scott seemed to want for the uninformed masses).
On the other hand, I felt there was something off about the questions. They seemed "too cute" --too framed for an uninformed person looking for a response to the sensationalism of the past month. Asking questions about delicate negotiations--that seemed coarse and unworthy to me. I was glad to hear from both Presidents.
I understand Scotts irritation BUT the key issue here is we are talking about two entirely different cultures. What the USA (and the UK and the whole of the Anglo-Saxon world) suffers from is an internalised belief that what they stand for and believe is implicitly superior to every other country and is the way to go and the yardstick to measure everyone else against.
Moreover, politicians in the west who are used to this kind of 'soft' interview would have prepared for it witha pre-interview to try and find out what direction it would go in.
What Tucker needs to do is understand that it is not only a different language but a completely different way of looking at the world - and that demands a certain empathy which the west because of its feeling of inate superiority cannot comprehend without a bit of study. This re-inforces the phobias that are inflicted on all perceived 'enemies' of 'the west'.
My ancestors went to Africa genuinely believing they were bringing civilisation to 'the natives'. They were blind because they were culturally trapped in an ideology that they assumed was superior to all others. Today, the west genuinely believes that it is bringing 'democracy' and equality to the world and will impose iot on others regardless - the modern equivalent of 'bringing civilisation to the natives'.
Younger Iranians - I bet - were irritated by the interview with President Masoud Pezeshkian's responses because they are more clued into western culture and would have used different expressions and examples and would say 'Why didn't he say this and make this or that point' that 'western' audiences would relate to more easily. Many speak English (and German) and understand 'the west'.
But this FIRST step of engaging with 'the west's adversaries' is really positive and Tucker Carlson has broken through a barrier and should be congratulated. Imagine if an alien space ship landed - how would he conduct such an interview? From the deep inside of 'western culture' (which is actually an ersatz culture increasingly stripped of human reference points and dominated by consumerism and individualism) I increasingly see its flaws. Tucker has begun that journey and should be supported to continue it because nobody comes ready made and he is on a journey. He gave an opportunity to Iran. It wasn't fully expoited by Iran and Tucker could have helped by being a bit more empathetic and nuanced. But, hell, it's an advance.
Let me give a better example. Look at Gaza. Older Palestinians who speak Arabic and not English and whose conduct revolves around the 'rules' embodied in the Quoran simply don't relate to 'western audiences' - but the younger generation who believe exactly the same things can and do. They can translate morality and politics and the way Palestinians look at the world in a way that people in the western world can relate to. Because I want to understand I read about these views and have come to learn something that I can only whisper even to myself: much of what they say and do is superior morally to our values and the way 'the west' behaves.
Point in Case. If you watch the resistance report put out by the Electronic Intifada by Jon Elmer which tracks the fighting in Gaza you will see the way the combatants think and how motivated they are. Despite this, when they wound 'the enemy' (IDF soldiers) they refuse to fire on the ambulances and helicopters that come to pick the wounded up. Why? Because it is against what is laid down in the Quoran. It baffles Jon Elmer and would any western infantryman - but that is their culture. It used to be part of ours and we have lost it.
I am sad to say that I must agree w/Ritter on this one. Carlson seems still devoted to a collapsing dogma about the US, about US politics, and his sense of history is nearly impossible to discern. Has he studied no history of anywhere?
Agree with Scott to a certain extent. Tucker Carlson has good intentions but it would be better if he interviewed the foreign minister of Iran who is sharper and probably closer to Ayat Khamenei Iran and people like Carlson are brave because Zionists have total control of trump and his cabinet. The loss is American lives and economy if they are still after regime change Nuclear issue is easy to solve as all Iran wanted was to continue uranium for medical and other benign reasons with guarantee of no nuclear bomb and full cooperation with IAEA. Israel will sink USA sooner or later with lot of economic and material loss to USA Hope peace makers prevail and solve the problem by dialogue
Another thoughtful "Rant". Thanks, Scott. Your standards and measures of quality are rooted in truth, honesty and educational value, not a highly praised set of qualities in today's media! That is why we love you!
This was interesting. I haven't viewed the interview, but saw another channel where Candance Owens gave her response to it and she seemed to have been impressed with it, saying she learned somethings she hadn't know before. Maybe it wasn't as bad as Scott seems to think.
Tucker can be great, but at times he just seems to be "coasting" along.
I agree with you, Scott, that Tucker's interview with P Putin was weak. This weakness has more to do with the Russian administration's inherent lack of communication sophistication than with Tucker. In his interview with the Iranian politician, Tucker wanted to expose Israel. He succeeded in doing it. Always a pleasure to listen to your rant.