One thing I have come to realize about Tucker. He is much like the rest in the media. He has his own agenda. He'll do and say whatever to elevate his brand. He's a bit of a grifter. Why didn't he take Trump to task on his Operation Warp Speed when he spoke out so much about it when on Fox. He had many experts talk about how problematic the vaccines have been. Yet, since he left Fox, he's on the Trump train, as if all he said previously is no longer relevant.
His schtick is to instill controversy which elevates his brand; nothing more, nothing less.
I admit that I puzzle about how good any interview can be, because both the interviewer and interviewee may be operating under constraints. There's first the question of lining up participation: an interview subject may demand lots of restrictions: don't ask about this; don't dig into that. But, what if an interviewer does dig into a verbotten issue? An interview subject may then threaten to walk out, and that would look bad. But, the interview subject might also decline to accept future interviews. If an interview is one-shot affair, then each party might play its end game, but, if the prospect of a future stream of interviews is a real thing--and if the interview values such interviews--then the interview may play nice and go along with a soft-ball interview.
In any case, there seemed (to me) to be opportunities for Tucker to ask for elaboration on various points that Putin had made. Like the whole "de-nazification" narrative ... it's a little strained, but it is important to hear how Putin and his people spin and quasi-contextualize matters ...
I think Tucker was unprepared. He did not have enough knowledge of even more recent history to be able direct the discussion or to counter much of anything Putin said. Putin took control of the conversation. My big takeaway was that Putin is just like our politicians: lie, lie, lie, yada, yada, yada. Main difference being that Putin routinely kills those who oppose him. Ours are just corrupt and at the stage of using lawfare against those who oppose the favored ideology.
It's a puzzle, isn't it? Tucker and his people have gotten back into their rhythm and put out such an impressive volume of material that requires a lot of creative energy. But, "the interview" was lacking. but, I am glad he and his people managed to get the interview.
One thing I have come to realize about Tucker. He is much like the rest in the media. He has his own agenda. He'll do and say whatever to elevate his brand. He's a bit of a grifter. Why didn't he take Trump to task on his Operation Warp Speed when he spoke out so much about it when on Fox. He had many experts talk about how problematic the vaccines have been. Yet, since he left Fox, he's on the Trump train, as if all he said previously is no longer relevant.
His schtick is to instill controversy which elevates his brand; nothing more, nothing less.
I admit that I puzzle about how good any interview can be, because both the interviewer and interviewee may be operating under constraints. There's first the question of lining up participation: an interview subject may demand lots of restrictions: don't ask about this; don't dig into that. But, what if an interviewer does dig into a verbotten issue? An interview subject may then threaten to walk out, and that would look bad. But, the interview subject might also decline to accept future interviews. If an interview is one-shot affair, then each party might play its end game, but, if the prospect of a future stream of interviews is a real thing--and if the interview values such interviews--then the interview may play nice and go along with a soft-ball interview.
In any case, there seemed (to me) to be opportunities for Tucker to ask for elaboration on various points that Putin had made. Like the whole "de-nazification" narrative ... it's a little strained, but it is important to hear how Putin and his people spin and quasi-contextualize matters ...
I think Tucker was unprepared. He did not have enough knowledge of even more recent history to be able direct the discussion or to counter much of anything Putin said. Putin took control of the conversation. My big takeaway was that Putin is just like our politicians: lie, lie, lie, yada, yada, yada. Main difference being that Putin routinely kills those who oppose him. Ours are just corrupt and at the stage of using lawfare against those who oppose the favored ideology.
It's a puzzle, isn't it? Tucker and his people have gotten back into their rhythm and put out such an impressive volume of material that requires a lot of creative energy. But, "the interview" was lacking. but, I am glad he and his people managed to get the interview.