A spokesperson for the Russian government clarified that it has rejected requests to interview Vladimir Putin from reputable media outlets

The Kremlin’s first public response to Tucker Carlson’s announcement that he’s landed an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin was to fact-check the former Fox News host.

On Wednesday, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov confirmed that Carlson had indeed interviewed Putin, but took issue with Carlson’s claim that “not a single Western journalist has bothered” to interview Russia’s president throughout the nation’s war with Ukraine, which has raged for more than two years.

Putin’s refusal to sit down with most Western media outlets likely has less to do with accusations of bias so much as an unwillingness to be subjected to legitimate scrutiny of his government. Russia has been accused of committing atrocities and war crimes in its offensive against Ukraine, including the unlawful executions of civilians. Putin’s government is also infamous for its frequent detainment of political rivals and critics, as well as the cloud of mysterious deaths and poisonings of those in his orbit.

Whether Carlson will question Putin on any of these matters remains to be seen. The former Fox News host’s history of granting softball interviews to controversial influencers, political figures, and authoritarian leaders, indicates this is unlikely. Given everything we know about Putin’s propaganda machine, it’s clear that in Carlson, the Russian government sees a safe opportunity to broadcast its carefully crafted messaging to American viewers.

  • eran_morad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    116
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Republicans are very nearly all either (1) manipulative traitor cunts who amass power and money no mater the cost to others; (2) mentally defective degenerates, useful idiots.

    • pezhore@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Why can’t they be both? (Gif of taco bell family goes here)

      Edit: woof, sorry all, lesson learned with referring to the Taco Bell gif as “Latinx”. Fixed hopefully?

      • Shiggles@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        48
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        Latinx is not a term used by basically anyone of latin ethnicity. Stop trying to make it happen.

        • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          Imo (and my opinion probably doesn’t matter as a white man), it’s actually more bigoted to ignore the gendered-nature of Spanish and force English language rules onto another culture.

          • neoman4426@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Or at least if they’re going to insist anyway go with something like latinae that vaguely follows grammatical rules and is able to be pronounced

            • BossDj@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              The Latino group I met (college students) said they go with Latinx only because it’s the movement that actually gained traction in recognizing the bias.

              Now the more important piece they said is how extremely patriarchal Latino communities already are, and it’s what they know and we’re raised with, so of course “the majority” think it’s stupid because the majority are older and Christian and very set in their ways. Similar to so many women stuck in shit marriages because they were raised to think that’s their lot in life.

              • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                It’s a fascinating intersectionality issue. The Latino students you met are definitely right about bias and the patriarchy issues. But, it would be incredibly patronizing for someone who isn’t Latino to correct someone who is and say they should be using Latinx instead.

                I think we have to recognize that unless we’re Latino, this isn’t our battle. We can help out of course, but it isn’t our place to tell them what term they should use. That’s something Latinos have to decide on their own, and we use what they ask us to use.

                • BossDj@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Totally agree! Well said.

                  I’m just scared that the message “they don’t want it. Stop trying” empowers especially white racist people and disenfranchises the youth who are fighting for the change over time (I don’t actually know our research how large this movement is. Obviously I still used Latino in my own post). Big right wing media gets their message out that progressives are reverse racist, but the more accurate message you said I think isn’t as pervasive, and both sides need to hear it. Especially among minorities who aren’t getting representation or getting their voices heard.

            • MagicShel@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              In my head, I pronounce it “luhTinks”. I don’t know what is intended and I’m pretty sure that’s not it, but that only makes it more fun to think of it that way.

              • neoman4426@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                I think the idea is intended as something like “Latin. X.”, which isn’t really any better, sounds like the monster from a racist 50s B movie or something. La-tinx is where my mind always defaults to too though

          • mhague@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Latinx comes from students from Columbia or something. It’s a Latin American term.

            • Spur4383@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              10 months ago

              You are so clearly well read on the topic that you cannot spell the name of a country you are accusing of creating the term. It was Pero Rico scholars that counted the term, and this it is a creation of the USA.

              • mhague@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                10 months ago

                I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. I spelled a country’s name wrong? Ok.

              • Confused_Emus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                You are so clearly well read on the topic that you cannot spell the name of a country you are accusing of creating the term. It was Pero Rico scholars that counted the term, and this it is a creation of the USA.

                Did you mean Puerto Rico…?

        • Restaldt@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          And the even dumber part is we already had a way to express the same info with just saying latin

        • mhague@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          Latinx was invented by latin ethnicities. Just listen to people when they say what they want to be called, it probably isn’t Latinx but it might be.

          • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            I do listen to people, and most fucking hate latinx. Maybe you are the one with your ears plugged… One latino person does not speak for all latinos. That’s not how race works. That’s not how it has ever worked.

            • mhague@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              10 months ago

              Exactly, one person doesn’t speak for everyone. Ignore people who say “latins don’t like Latinx” because they don’t speak for everyone and it’s a Latin American term anyways. Listen to those around you and you’ll know what to use. We’re in agreement.

              • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                Uhhhhh no you are literally not even listening to your own advice…

                MOST PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE IT. That is SPECIFICALLY NOT ignoring their opinion on the matter, you brainless worm. Most Mexicans and Spanish people do not like it. Most do not like it. Start fucking LISTENING.

                • mhague@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  You think because I added more context behind the word Latinx that I’m advocating for it to be the general term for a group of people, right? I was trying to figure out how you got so confused and angry.

                  Either that or you feel that by not deferring to your expertise on Mexicans and Spanish people, it’s equivalent to not listening to others, which makes me a hypocrite because I’m saying to listen to individuals.

      • Orbituary@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        Latino here. 93% of us polled either dislike, find stupid, or are not interested in the English language usage of the word “Latinx.” It’s use is a misunderstanding of the basic functional parts of the Spanish language.

        Its usage presumes some sort of malicious gendering of words, however most languages, and in particular, Latin based languages like Spanish, French, Italian, and Portuguese, all use gendering.

        • eran_morad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          Wait — you don’t like to be told by a bunch of entitled assholes what to call yourself?

        • nvvp@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          While only a small percentage prefer latinx, most don’t care. You’re misreading or misrepresenting the poll.

          The majority (57%) said that a choice among the labels “Hispanic,” “Latino,” “Latinx” or another term didn’t matter to them, while another 23% preferred “Hispanic” and 15% preferred “Latino.”

          https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/388532/controversy-term-latinx-public-opinion-context.aspx

        • Jaderick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I thought Latinx was part of a movement that would explicitly remove gendering of words from languages like Spanish, French, and German. I thinks it’s by design, but unpopular

          • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            Well if they’re going to do it by replacing everything with x, they’re going to have to talk to Elon…

        • LennethAegis@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’ve also heard “Latine” used, how is that one doing in hispanic culture? I’m hispanic myself, but have lived mostly separate from the culture, so I’m unfamiliar if the terms get used or not.

          • Orbituary@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            That’s a different thing altogether. Its origins are in Spanish and attempt to do the same as “they/them” and is a attempt to be inclusive of gender fluidity.

            Latinx is an entitled American white invention.

        • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          I love how responses to this change from “ask someone from Latin America” to “you dont know as much as I do” when you don’t back them up.

          They go from revering you until you appear, to discounting your experience when you do.

      • killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Being manipulative requires the intelligence to know how and when to manipulate others.

        Being manipulated requires low intelligence and emotional fragility.

        Tucker was always going to be compromised in that regard.

  • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    98
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    I don’t think he’s a useful idiot, he knows exactly what he’s doing. 1980’s Trump was a useful idiot, advocating for the end of the Western international order because it made him look and feel smart and powerful.

    Tucker is participating in a quid pro quo. He gets a major interview which makes him the center of the conversation for a while and gives him negotiating leverage in his next project, Putin gets his preferred message out to the American Right.

      • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        No, he’s intelligent, and that’s why he’s dangerous. He knows how to launder Russian propaganda and white supremacist talking points to a broader audience.

          • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Manipulating idiots requires planning and calculated intent. Do not ascribe lack of intelligence to people who work very hard to hurt democratic ideals, whether they look like fools or no.

            • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              You are promoting a success fallacy. “Icons and leaders must be intelligent to have made it into positions of power and popularity” the fact is that a combination of chaos, charisma, privilege, and ignorance are actually more likely to permit a rise to power than intelligence. Don’t make assumptions about intelligence where there is no objective evidence. The words he speaks and the decisions he makes demonstrate emperic stupidity. Ascrbing a sense of evil calculating genius is unwarranted and empowers the stooges that follow him to presume that there is some sort of master plan with hidden potential for greatness.

      • APassenger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I think he’s vying to up his VP cred. Would make him useful, but maybe less of an idiot. Immoral? Yes. Idiot… Not entirely.

        That’s why we gotta watch out for him. He gets VP and Trump dies? I think it could be worse than many imagine.

        • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’m already on suicide watch if Trump is prez again. At that point you’d be foolish to hold on to hope. I don’t care if he picks Satan for his VP or even Satan’s boss MTG.

  • downhomechunk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’ve never seen a side shot of tucker Carlson that I can recall. Now I know why.

    • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      10 months ago

      I wish people would stop glorifying that guy. He was an addict, a drunk, abusive, a sexual abuser and creep.

      • NOPper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        10 months ago

        Sure, but at least he would admit all that and was on the side of the people. You don’t have to be a perfect human being to shine light on bullshit and injustice.

      • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Philip K Dick was a douchebag but his art was honest and very thought invoking. I love the way some people’s ideas and presentation makes me consider hard subjects.

        Hunter S Thompson was a nightmare of a person. Can you imagine being in his cross hairs when he’s fuckin lit? But even when he’s seeing lizard people fucking each other in a Vegas Bar or having a lucid moment in the middle of a flooded hotel room and everywhere he looks he’s describing the extent of a 1960s drug experience. It’s absolutely fascinating! I don’t do drugs but how else would I get an honest experience except from someone who is intellectually honest with himself and his writing?

        Would I want to hang out with either of those guys or Hemingway or any of those people with difficult histories? Probably not. Would I spend hours and hours experiencing the world through the lens of their world? Fuckin right I would.

        Nobody is perfect. Quit expecting it. All your heroes have a major personality flaw. It’s human.

        • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          That’s some crazy waving away of someone’s crimes to justify liking them. I mean Noam Chomsky was great for me too until I found out about him and Epstein. Now I don’t really care what he says.

          Or Polanski, great movies? I’ll never know cause I refuse to watch anything he puts out.

          Waving away people’s awfulness cause they made art is how you end up with people like Victor Salva, a guy who was convicted of repeatedly raping his 12 year old child star, and after he gets out, he’s given more directing jobs and people praising his movies.

          • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Polanski made some very good films with lots of people who did amazing performances. Your argument is weak and doesn’t deal with all the other people involved. Polanski should have gone to jail and I am not going to defend him personally but he didn’t make porn with children so his professional endeavors can be judged for themselves. He is a coward and disgusting but he also is a pretty good example of men of his generation.

      • rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        The sexual assault charges against him were dropped due to a lack of evidence.

        I won’t deny that he was a drunk and a junkie, but the evidence that he was also a predator seems… slim.

        I can’t find any other instances of him being accused of being a creep. On the other hand, fake sexual assault reports aren’t common. I dunno, man.

  • Lianodel@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    10 months ago

    Peskov claimed on Wednesday that Carlson’s position on the conflict with Ukraine is “not pro-Russian by any means, and it’s not pro-Ukrainian; rather, it’s pro-American. But at least it stands in clear contrast to the position of the traditional Anglo-Saxon media.”

    Pffft hahaha, what a fucking racist dork. That’s some 4chan-level shit.

    Also, while I think it’s overall a good article, I think calling Tucker a useful idiot is unfair. When I think of a useful idiot, I think of someone who means well, but is on the wrong side without realizing it. Tucker’s not a smart man, but he knows what he’s doing. If you ever watch his shit (which I only recommend to verify his grift), he’s not just disconnected from reality, but actively contrary to it. He’s trying to poison the well, while inoculating his viewers to reality and any argument based on it. He’s not simply wrong, he’s lying. He knows what he’s doing is wrong, but he’s doing it anyway, for his own benefit.

  • fluxion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    10 months ago

    Useful to Putin and his puppets. Useless idiot as far as actual American interests are concerned.

  • meathorse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’d almost put money on this useful idiot being used to funnel new information/strategy back to the orange lard and it’s lawyer

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    This is going to be on Tucker’s new streaming platform, right?

    So at least almost no one will see it.

    • cabbage@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Except that everybody is talking about it, which is a success for both Putin and Carlson already.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I don’t know how it helps Putin for people to simply know he was interviewed. He can’t get his propaganda out unless they watch the interview.

        • cabbage@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          I think it’s very likely all the media attention will translate to a whole lot of views. People will think it’s a rare chance to “hear what Putin has to say about the situation”, as if his propaganda hasn’t been on Russian television 24/7 for years now.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Yeah, but in order to do that, they have to pay to join Tucker’s streaming platform. And that is the thing which makes me think not too many people will watch it.

            • cabbage@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              Not many, but way more than otherwise would have. And the rest will read about it somewhere else, spreading Putin’s propaganda independently of the stupidity of the platform.

              Or maybe it’ll just expose Tucker as the complete hack that he is once and for all. But I kind of doubt those who haven’t seen it already can ever be convinced.

    • ganksy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      The interview has nothing to offer. It’s all about talking about the interview and how Tucker brings Putin back into the American sphere in a palatable way(to some).

  • AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    10 months ago

    I think Putin is paranoid about being near someone who is not FSB and having an “accident”, because that is how he operates. He is doing a Stalin speedrun, and I don’t think he’ll last much longer.

      • Nioxic@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        falling out of a window is also a natural cause

        it’s certainly NOT a supernatural cause - if that’s the alternative

        • betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          As long as it’s something, there are only a few bad answers. Ghosts, gravity or a guard willing to do some good for their country can all get the job done and I’ll celebrate. Whoever runs the show next over there will determine how much there is to be happy about but one thing at a time.

  • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I hope that Tucker asks all of the important questions that Putin has avoided until now and then promptly disappears to ‘play golf’ in Siberia for the next couple of decades.

    • chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      The language of the article suggests the interview already happened but is not yet released. Could be a mistake, but I’m guessing they need to edit it, show the Kremlin for approval/final edit, then release.

    • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      it literally quotes the minister saying they have deliberately denied access to “major” news organizations, and then draws the conclusion from Carlsons previous “softball” interviews that this was only approved because it’s useful to Russia.

      What conclusion do you draw?

    • Severalkittens@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yea this is such an awkward phrase that only confuses non native speakers, and even native ones that haven’t heard it. It reads like a school essay adding useless words trying to hit a count.