In the week or so before Carlson published his interview with Vladimir Putin, the talking heads on Russian state television spoke glowingly of what could be expected. Their logic was that Tucker Carlson is the most influential journalist in the English-speaking world with a vast audience of viewers and that he would make available to the world the complete, uncensored recording of his conversation with Putin.
What has been withheld from the American public would now reach them directly. The Ukraine war financed and armed by the Biden administration has proceeded amidst a blackout on Russian news sources that are systematically condemned as ‘disinformation’ or propaganda. With the help of Carlson, the eyes of Americans and others in the Collective West would be opened to reality, opened to the logic of Putin’s thinking and to the Russian view of the way out of the ongoing crisis.
As soon as it was confirmed from Moscow that the interview actually took place and would be made available on Carlson’s internet platform, major Western broadcasters raised a hullabaloo. The loudest voice of condemnation came from CNN, where a television presenter denounced Carlson as a fraud, a non-journalist, citing accusations against him dating from the lawsuits that ultimately cost Carlson his job at Fox News. Carlson’s claim in his address from Red Square issued on the day before the interview’s release that he had done what no one else in Western media had dared to do was called a lie: CNN and others said they had been banging on the Kremlin’s door to do an interview with Putin but had received only refusals.
Meanwhile Russian state television maintained that Carlson had been granted this extraordinary favor because he alone, as opposed to mainstream media, would guaranty that the final product aired had no cuts.
I have several remarks to make on the Carlson interview after going through all two hours of it. The first and most damaging remark is that its being uncut, or unedited if you will, is precisely its biggest fault. What we have here is an undisciplined, self-indulgent work of journalism that has all the negative aspects of self-publication. There is a reason why editors existed as a profession, and it is a tough trade-off to accept unlimited transparency at the price of zero quality control. It is a mistake to believe that editing has to serve only hostile intentions.
I say this in full knowledge that I and my fellow commentators who publish essays on their own websites or who publish books on Amazon subsidiaries face this very problem daily.
But back to Carlson and Putin:
For at least ten years, I have been following Vladimir Putin’s speeches and his performance during televised Q&A sessions that can last hours. He was always very impressive for tightly argued points that drew on his encyclopedic memory. Here the very ground rules stating that the discussion would go on without any time limitation worked against Putin’s strengths: he became prolix, did not answer a given question but repeatedly went back to further develop his answer to a previous question, and so on. Worst of all, he decided to open his ‘serious discussion’ with Carlson by delivering a 30 minute history lecture on Russia and Ukraine going back to the 9th century and taking his sweet time bringing us up to the period just before WWI. I can easily imagine that the audience for this video will have contracted by half or more at that point.
The interview became interesting only after the 50 minute point. Putin then spoke about the draft agreement to end the war initialed by the Ukrainian side at negotiations in Istanbul in March 2022. He discussed denazification, what it means and how it had been dealt with in the draft 2022 treaty. Still more serious material comes up as from one hour seven minutes when Putin talks about how Russia’s threat to the West is an invention to scare their publics and pass financing for the war. His explanation for Russia’s putting blame for the Nord Stream bombing on Washington was good, as were his remarks on Germany’s silence on the subject. At one hour 18 minutes, Putin speaks well about multipolarity in global affairs, from which he goes on to a solid description of how the United States is doing serious damage to the dollar as the currency of international trade by its wrong-minded sanctions policies.
I think that those who stay with the interview this far will also appreciate what Putin has to say about his relationship with American Presidents and how the decision makers on foreign policy are really the elites, whose minds are stuck in the pre-1991 prejudices.
At times, Carlson posed questions that do him no credit. Asking Putin how an observant Christian like him can kill people in a war he unleashes may be a question coming from the religious community of Trump backers, but sounds very naïve, not to say stupid when addressed to a head of state.
Perhaps the least professional part of the interview was the last 10 minutes when Carlson seemed to forget who he is and who is Putin, asking in the spirit of ‘just between us guys’ whether Putin would not be magnanimous and release that poor kid (age 32) journalist Evan Gershkovich who could not really have been doing espionage.
This morning’s BBC news program offered viewers about 1 minute from the interview in which Putin said Russia had no interest whatsoever in invading, in occupying the Baltic States, Poland or other NATO countries and that he could envisage a war with Poland only if Poland attacked Russia first. That was better than the total silence about the interview on Euronews and CNN, but it was very meager coverage of what should have been the number one media event of the day.
Curiously, the Financial Times this morning offered a three page article on the interview which reporters Max Seddon and Felicia Schwartz probably won from reluctant editors by taking as their lead those final minutes devoted to release of the imprisoned journalist Gershkovich. From there, at the two thirds mark they turned to other subjects from the interview relating to the start of the Ukraine war and the way Russia is being used by the US and its western allies “to intimidate their own population with an imaginary Russian threat,” a direct quote from Putin. At the same time the FT was not far from the mark in describing Putin’s performance as “a grab bag.”
In closing, I wish to share my impression of one dimension of the interview that surely few others will comment on: body language. Carlson was true to form, posing with a blank, puzzled face the whole time. However, there were flashes of Putin that we normally do not see, and they were not at all flattering. Perhaps it was barely contained annoyance with this pushy American, but Putin allowed himself to display arrogance that contradicted the modest composure we most commonly see. That will not win many friends for Russia.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024
Gilbert Doctorow 
Well, the things is, Tucker was patently out of his depth from the start. An intelligent guy, but not in the same ballpark at Mr P. You are correct, Putin displayed an unpleasant side…taunting Ticker about his attempt to join the CIA “back in the day” was especially cruel…probably because he knows Tucker is still an occasional CIA asset. Tucker’s frozen expression…paralysed fear…when Putin raised the subject…I thought spoke volumes.
LikeLike
I haven’t listed to the interview, but appreciate your measured and reasoned critique, which reminds one of the imperative to observe scientific disinterest in what one is writing or reporting about ……
LikeLike
It didn’t live up to the hype, I think that should have been expected for anyone paying attention. Especially for those who were skeptical of Tucker Carlson in the first place. He’s like many on the US right – willing to engage with leaders of countries US policymakers don’t like, not out of some vision of reconciliation or multipolarity, but rather because the US right wants to humiliate the domestic political opposition, and also wishes for itself a leader who presents strength, who would then continue with the same old basic vision of US primacy. Think Ronald Reagan, whom Trump tried to channel, with mixed success.
On the non-verbal side, I think the steady tone of voice by Putin’s interpreter into English, probably took some of the edge off. On the other hand, the flow of language gets muddled by the interpreting. I didn’t think that was a big deal at all, but apparently some people do.
On the whole, the lack of sound bytes and fast back-and-forth exchanges will just put the US audience to sleep. For the bulk of the global audience, outside either of the two countries, it might be interesting.
LikeLike
Yes, it was more of a chat than an interview. But we have to remember that Russians do things differently from the short attention span West — just look at that copy of “War & Peace” on your bookshelf! Carlson could certainly have asked more penetrating questions, and President Putin had little new to add to what he has been saying for years (if Our Betters had taken the time to listen).
As for editing — the very real threat there with Western media is that they will edit an interview to distort what the interviewee was trying to communicate. Some serious people have point blank stated they will only do live interviews, specifically to avoid the mendacious editing issue.
The bright side is that Joe Biden’s handlers sent him out to do one of his very rare press conferences to distract attention from President Putin’s interview — and poor old Joe Biden once more showed how low his mental faculties have sunk. That seems to have washed Carlson’s interview from the headlines.
LikeLike
I thoroughly disagree. Although both of them seemed annoyed with each other at times, what do you expect under circumstances that they really were only meeting for the first time, and under the stress of filming and simultaneous translation? Too bad for those who don’t care, but I think the first 40 min of Putin going through the history of Russia will be invaluable for those who want to try to understand Putin’s thinking about the West.
As for what the media reported, I doubt either of them could care less.
I watched the whole interview gaining respect for both Carlson and Putin; both of whom I already highly regard. And the timing!! At a point that the US and Europe better wake up before we push Russia to a point of no return.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I, also, respectfully, disagree, at least with the headline announcing something went wrong. My disagreement can be expressed thusly, I think the intended audience was not the Western masses. The audience was Western elites. You’re right, if the target audience was the general public, it was a failure. It would have needed more car crashes and boobs. FFS, it’s hard enough to get people to watch a two hour movie without those things. No, the audience was the decision makers, and possibly, historians of the future. The proles have zero impact on policy. Putin was appealing to the people in the elite who are not insane. Here is the history, ancient and recent, you’re in the wrong, you still have time to act prudently. I think he came across as sincere, with a sense of humor, and completely in control of himself.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I watched the interview in it’s full length last night and found it only fairly interesting. What I noticed right at the beginning was that both Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin did not feel comfortable at all, to me it felt very tense, Carlson did not look Putin in the eyes, not at ease at all as I would have expected from a seasoned interviewer. Putin was in full control after a few minutes and started to get more relaxed. In my opinion Putin got a bit annoyed because of the shallow questions and he showed it too much, that was the only thing I would criticize on Vladimir Putin. Tucker Carlson was disappointing in every respect, not properly prepared was his biggest mistake, shallow questions, not able to follow up, etc.. What was he thinking this is going to be? To me it felt as Carlson was really relived when Putin proposed to finish the interview. The two hours could have yielded much more substance. Definitely not a highlight in Tucker Carlson’s career.
LikeLike
Considering the circumstances that is understandable. Tucker Carlson as a American knew that it was risky, considering the proxy war between the US and Russia. He could have been tossed in prison for any reason and he knows it, and he would stay there too. He wasn’t talking from a position of power either as past interviews have been done, with the target close to begging for a peace treaty or explaining his case as Saddam Hussein did prior to the Iraq invasion. Putin looked confident but also very close to just saying no to any more attempts of working things out with the West, like it is a waste of time for him but he did the interview anyway.
LikeLike
A great interview with the industrious Carlson able to keep up with ever masterful President Putin, There’s even some humour! It’s a long-form interview, covering much. People are used to sound bites only. I think it’s great. And what a brilliant end, but tragic, with President Putin recounting an incident in the war, where Ukranian soldiers screamed in Russian: “Russians do not surrender!” It shows how intertwined the Ukraine/Russia region is. The malevolent, interfering aggression of western countries is appalling!! When will they behave in the world in a civilized manner. Bring on the multipoloar world and better intellignce in the west! ~ Thanks President Putin, journalist Tucker Carlson, and the Sputnik translation not 100% perfect, but very good! – Kay in New Zealand
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you are off the mark criticizing lack of editing.
The established media is dead, for most people crave authenticity and depth rather than a predigested ‘product’. I don’t know the recent numbers, but Joe Rogan used to get million of views, and his podcasts are running into multiple hours. Why would you think that uncut 2 hrs conversation with a leader of a superpower would be less interesting for most viewers?
It was a good podcast despite Tucker ‘winging’ it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The unedited version may not have been as popular as the soundbite, talking-point focused interviews the American public is used to, but given the unethical hatchet job done with Megyn Kelly’s interview with Putin, I was glad they steered clear. And I don’t think kowtowing to those whose passion for simplicity and brevity allows for a sufficient understanding of the Ukrainian history that certainly is essential for understanding the current conflict.
LikeLike
Not a bad analysis. I watched the whole interview through, then the second half again.
1. Tucker Carlson is out to promote Tucker Carlson. Nothing more, nor less.
2. Apparently Carlson couldn’t be bothered to prepare for the interview. He knew diddly-squat about the history of Ukraine even from Maidan and subsequent events. His questions were juvemile.
3. Putin’s answers did not sink into Carlson’s brain — that is, the man was not listening. Putin had to remind him several times that he’d already answered Carlson”s “new” question previously. Must have thought — “What a prime dolt!. Is this the best interviewer they have?” And I’d agree with him.
4. Putin was at his pedantic best. Or worst, depending on your point of view. Basically, he didn’t really trust the self-promoting huckster Carlson, so the history lesson at the beginning was just to see whether Carlson had the faintest clue about anything. Obviously not, Carlson looked baffled. The independent blogosphere says Carlson is brainy. Really?
Carlson’s subsequent not very bright questions after his history lesson, his obvious inattentiveness, and growing disappointement at responses that did not hew to the US’s innate navel-gazing nature, which is, they care not one whit about any other country in the world but themselves was self-evident. And yet, even this juvenile level of questioning from Carlson got the neocon lunatics who run the USA to bay for Carlson’s head. The US is beyond redemption. They really believe they’re still number one, and Carlson himself is so self-important, I find him a complete joke. Shallowness personified, but big-headed with it.
LikeLike
“but Putin allowed himself to display arrogance”
Sorry, I watched the interview and did not get this impression. Maybe the way he described his counterparts in the West today? He was unjustifiably polite in his desrciption of the totality of the western political class as it presents itself with the ar..wipes from the EU and the USA. Other than that…he was also polite to Carlson, especially regarding the request of the release bypassing the legal and security apparatus of the RF.
The interview (documentary?) with Oliver Stone was incomprably at a much higher level of discussion, with an interviewer of a higher intellect and preparedness than Tucker.
LikeLike
All true.
LikeLike
Surprised no one in the above comments made mention of the timing of this extended interview with Putin juxtaposed with the release of the special counsel Robert Hur’s report that Biden is essentially not mentally fit enough to be charged with mishandling classified documents. Seems to me this interview just compounds the damage already done to Biden.
LikeLike
And yet, as Larry Johnson points out…….
https://sonar21.com/tucker-carlson-destroys-legacy-media/
…….Carson’s interview with the President of the Russian Federation attracted “six times more viewers than ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC combined. And he is not spending one dime on advertising trying to attract viewers.
CNN’s numbers are really pathetic. Their “top” show only attracted 733,000 viewers. Tucker blew through that number in the first 30 minutes of his interview with Putin. When you stop to consider the hundreds of millions of dollars the media companies with so few viewers you must wonder, “how long can this go on?”
Johnson notes that the actual viewing figures of this Carson interview: “as of 9:06 pm Saturday night (eastern standard time) is 186 million views.”
Which raises the pertinent question that if this interview represented poor journalism how bad must the rest of the corporate media in the West be?
It is also worth noting on these viewing figures that if the target audience of the interview was the ‘Western elite’ it certainly was an abject failure. Unless it going to be claimed that the ‘western elite’ numbers in the hundreds of millions.
LikeLike
I agree with many of Gilbert’s comments. Clearly, Putin does not talk as Trump does. Trump is funnier, Putin structured to the point of pedantry. I cannot imagine many New Zealanders staying for the curtain, as I did.
What hung in my memory was Putin’s description of a journey to Ukraine he made before 1992. He noticed men in three piece black suits and cylinder hats, and asked if they were entertainers. He was told “No, they are Hungarians.” “What are they doing here?”, he asked, and was told, “This is their country, they have always lived here.” It reeked of truth. No-one would make that up.
Putin was talking to me/everyone and I felt it important, but I do not know precisely why. My best guess is that he was saying that he was open to negotiation about such matters. Where such negotiations might lead I cannot predict. Like many of the breadcrumbs that Putin scattered during these long hours, the promise was elusive, and the details vague. My guess is that this sophistication would suit/appeal to the Europeans more than to the Americans.
If I were him, I would offer the Americans a three sentence agreement and leave all the details to the Europeans to sort out over the next three years.
LikeLike
Every day, there are more and more people who are interested in working from home. They either aim for a better work-life balance or want to start their own business to increase their earning potential. e There are many job options available online, and it is important to do your research so you can decide which is the best fit for you. In this article, we will explore a list of potential make money from home jobs.
Here…. https://WorkBalance11.blogspot.com
LikeLike
– I have watched several videos in which Carlson did interviews for FOX (FAUX) News. He was most of the time dutifully toeing FOX’ line. However, every now and then Carlson would do an interview that didn’t fit the narrative of FOX News. In that regard Carlson certainly is NOT (fully) “bought and paid for” by the FOX News company and could make some of his own decisions about what to talk about in his shows.
– The reason Carlson was fired from FOX News about 9 months ago was an interview he did with Robert Kennedy Jr. in which Kennedy said that the US was turning into (or already was) a “system of socialism for the rich”.
Since then the same Kennedy gave a second (???) interview to Carlson: “Biden’s Economy ‘CRUSHING’ Working Class”
In order words, Carlson has still some “honest bones” in his body.
LikeLike