US media suppressed the content of Tucker Carlson's Putin interview — or alternatively — intentionally twisted it into unrecognizability

© 2024 Peter Free


10 February 2024



I live in a nation controlled by belligerent morons


Below is a link to Carlson's 08 February 2024 Moscow interview with Russia president, Vladimir Putin:



Tucker Carlson, Ep. 73  The Vladimir Putin Interview, X (08 February 2024)



A Google search indicates that most of the American media ignored the interview. Evidently, being under the impression that listening to foreign leaders might horribly contaminate the vacuously hostile, perennially propagandized American mind.


Below are two representative examples of what a few American media outlets did elect to say.



The New Yorker, culturally representatively . . .


. . . felt that it needed to add more (rather than just simple news-suppression) in the way of anti-Russia vaccinating the American public:



In an interview that lasted more than two hours, the Russian President aired well-trod grievances and gave a lecture full of spurious history meant to justify his war in Ukraine.


© 2024 Masha Gessen, Tucker Carlson Promised an Unedited Putin. The Result Was Boring, New Yorker (09 February 2024)



In reading the rest of the New Yorker's conclusory piece, I noticed that its author made no attempt to factually support any of its anti-Putin statements — in marked contrast to what the Russian president had done in his talk with Carlson.


This methodological omission (on author Masha Gessen's part) typifies the reflexively contra-factual types, who predominantly run our nonstop brainwashing American media.



Then, there's an arguably idiotic hit piece from Vanity Fair


Vanity Fair decided to solely focus on an American unfortunately in Russian custody.


This comparatively narrow perspective having been adopted to the complete exclusion of the facts underlying the scope of United States' proxy war with Russia. Which has, so far, killed about 500,000 Ukrainian troops:



Putin also repeated the unfounded claim that [Evan] Gershkovich “was caught red-handed when he was secretly getting confidential information.”


Gershkovich and the [Wall Street] Journal have denied any wrongdoing, stating the reporter was merely doing his job.


“We’re encouraged to see Russia’s desire for a deal that brings Evan home, and we hope this will lead to his rapid release and return to his family and our newsroom,” the Journal said in a statement Friday.


“Evan is a journalist, and journalism is not a crime. Any portrayal to the contrary is total fiction. Evan was unjustly arrested and has been wrongfully detained by Russia for nearly a year for doing his job, and we continue to demand his immediate release.”


The Russian president repeated many of his often-stated talking points about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, including meandering lessons on Slavic history to justify his war of conquest, but there was scant news value.


© 2024 Caleb Ecarma, One Thing We Learned from Tucker Carlson’s Servile Interview with Vladimir Putin, Vanity Fair (09 February 2024)



Notice Vanity Fair's claim that the Russian arrest was unfounded. Despite Putin's explicitly stated claim that it was based upon the statutory illegality of collecting classified Russian information — no matter how or why such data was gathered.


In other words, the Russian statute does not (apparently) require hostile or damaging intent on the part of the accused. A fact that, if true, would put it on par with American security measures to the same effect.


In sum, we have Vanity Fair claiming that an arrest inside Russia was not at all justified, under circumstances and law that it evidently knows nothing about.


Vanity Fair's contextually narrow reportorial focus coming to the exclusion of addressing any other quoted content from Tucker Carlson's 2 hour-plus long interview with the Russian president.





The moral? — In the United States, contrary to Sun Tzu . . .


. . . we ignore the wisdom of knowing and understanding our self-selected adversaries.


Idiocy-based global warmongering is preferred.


Which raises the question of whether there is anything geopolitically worse, than a maniacally nihilist American nation armed with nukes.


If you are curious as to who some of these Americans in power might be — see:



Bob Natelson, Who’s to Blame for the Elite Extreme Left?, Epoch Times (09 February 2024)