Short Summary
- Tucker Carlson interviews Russian President Vladimir Putin, emphasizing journalists’ duty to inform about the Ukraine war and its global impact.
- Some praise Carlson for the interview, advocating that everyone has the right to be heard.
- CNN’s Christiane Amanpour counters Carlson’s claims, stating journalists have long attempted to interview Putin.
- Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov denies Carlson’s claim of exclusive access to Putin.
- Carlson alleges the Biden Administration hacked his and his company’s phones to leak messages and derail the interview.
- The video concludes with discussions on the importance of tough questioning in interviews and potential EU sanctions against Carlson.
- The speaker discusses COVID, Israel-Palestine, and journalism, highlighting issues like restricted interviews with Putin and pressure on TV shows in Ukraine.
- They mention the suppression of pro-Palestinian speech in Europe, particularly Germany, and its impact on journalists.
- The concept of access journalism is explored, where journalists may conduct lighter interviews to secure more substantial ones later.
- The speaker reflects on their own interview with Dr. Fauci, the trade-offs involved, and invites viewer engagement for upcoming content.
Good.
No bueno, seems too authoritarian to my liking. Censorship is not good for the people.
Jailing people for talking to other people, even if they are powerful, should not be illegal.
I also think whistle blowers should not be jailed, they should be awarded, especially the journalists!
Breathe, dude. Where does it say “censor”? Nowhere.
And free speech isn’t freedom of consequences.
Freedom of Speech does mean freedom from consequences, at least from any government that recognizes that freedom of speech. The phrase, “Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences” refers to the ability of private entities to take negative actions against speakers engaging in free speech, simply because those negative actions were within the private entities’ rights all along. For example, the ability of any Lemmy instance to ban anyone they want.
Regardless, speech that is actively harmful, is false, or meets certain other circumstances (depending on which government you’re looking at) may not be recognized as covered free speech. Tucker Carlson is probably about to do a bunch of speech that is not covered by freedom of speech, which is why the expected sanctions will be justified.
The EU does not have the first amendment.
It’s not that complicated - Carlson is acting as a propaganda tool for Putin, hence he’s sanctioned, which is not censorship.
It also only applies to a government’s influence over its own citizens. Carlson is not a citizen of the EU.
That’s why he is getting sanctioned instead of prosecuted.
Oh yes, totally agree. Before this we never heard Putin’s perspective. It’s not like he has a media empire to get his message out.
This isn’t about censorship. This is about lending credence to Putin’s actions.
And profiting from a foreign power that has sanctions against it in the EU (and US btw, I wish our state department could cancel his passport).
Nobody gives a shit what you think you crypto fascist fan of fucking scumbags.
deleted by creator
Someone hiding their fascist beliefs behind things like false concern. They also will keep their beliefs silent while boosting stuff they see as helping them.
This is not just “talking”, it’s a propaganda business deal with a sanctioned foreign adversary and needs to be treated as such. And Carlson is not a journalist. Literally. He argued that in court.
You are talking to people from burguerstates. If they disagree with you, you should be silenced. Thats democracy to them