Tucker Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin woke many people up to the way that anyone and everyone can be a journalist, notably whether television hosts are or can be journalists, and the ethics of giving a voice or a platform to all actors in a time of war.
The interview made me uncomfortable for several reasons. I have no knee-jerk hatred of Russia and China, but I do have an intense loathing of violence and war, with a special place in hell reserved for propagandists, patriotic journalists and triumphalism in general.
I don’t have a dog in the fight (on the face of things there are only two dogs in the fight; Carlson and Putin) but the interview has raised very many questions about journalism, social media, patriotic journalism, activist journalism or advocacy journalism, and that tradition that is as old as the craft itself, war journalism.
I witnessed significant changes in war journalism after the destruction of the Soviet Union, Nato’s bombing of Yugoslavia and the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.
In the West, the collapse of the Soviet Union was met with triumphalism across American society, less so in Europe. In Iraq, the Brookings Institute went to great pains to deflect blame from the imbalances in reporting on the US war on Iraqis, and declared, in a single sentence that journalists would not “deliberately work against the interests of the Bush administration or the United States”.
If journalists would not “deliberately work against” US interests during the Cold War and any other American wars abroad, what can we expect in the current stand-off between Moscow and Washington? It seems like it is more of the same.
Cold War ethics and practices transferred to Russia-US relations
Ohio State University’s online publication, Origins: Current Events in Historical Context, identified a link between the end of the Cold War, the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the current tensions between the US and Russia:
“For over 40 years, the Cold War dominated the world’s headlines and provided the backdrop for almost everything. Then, in 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved. It was replaced by a much smaller Russian Federation and the former Soviet Socialist Republics became independent nations. The West celebrated its seeming triumph and some even declared ‘the end of history.’ This month historian David Hoffmann looks back on those events and finds the seeds of the hostility between Russia and the West that has replaced the Cold War.”
It is reasonable, then, to believe that the alarm about Carlson’s “interview” was equally about the professional ethics of journalism as his audacity to speak to the West’s latest bête noir. The Guardian columnist, Margaret Sullivan said of the interview that it was not journalism, but sycophancy. The “winner” of the interview, according to CNN, was Putin, who received a propaganda windfall.
Carlson defended his interview and was highly critical of Western media which, he claimed, was “not making an effort to hear Putin’s side of the story” which sparked a backlash from American and Russian journalists. This is the key to Carlson’s thinking, and something to which we will return, below: he interviewed Putin “because [he believed] it’s our job. We’re in journalism. Our duty is to inform people… not a single Western journalist has bothered to interview the president of the other country involved in this conflict, Vladimir Putin”.
Anne Applebaum contested Carlson’s claim, on X (nee Twitter) saying “he is not a journalist, he’s a propagandist, with a history of helping autocrats conceal corruption”.
Russian journalists who have felt the force of Putin’s presidency were incensed, and called out what Politico described as “the conservative provocateur”.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov quite bizarrely said that Tucker was chosen because he was unbiased. He said the interview was “not pro-Russian, not pro-Ukrainian, it’s pro-American. It starkly contrasts with the stance of traditional Anglo-Saxon media”.
“Unbelievable! I am like hundreds of Russian journalists who have had to go into exile to keep reporting about the Kremlin’s war against Ukraine,” Russian journalist Yevgenia Albats wrote. “The alternative was to go to jail. And now this SoB is teaching us about good journalism, shooting from the $1,000 Ritz suite in Moscow.”
It’s probably not worth debating who was right or who was wrong; whether it is good journalism to interview all sides in a conflict; and whether only one side deserves a platform. There are, of course, extreme cases where you cannot make an argument for “both sides”. I would not have wanted to do a “both-sides” report during the Second World War. Imagine giving one of the cruellest of people time to explain their side…
Journalism and the rise of the internet
The birth of the World Wide Web, the internet, accounts for the rise of a new generation of journalists and emboldened a generation of people to present propaganda, conspiracies, untruths, and all sorts of distortions as “necessary” and as simply using freedom of speech and of expression.
The internet, that world wide web accessible by everyone who can afford it, is officially now entering its fourth decade. I remember sending electronic messages on the internal network of large newspaper companies in the early 1980s, and an email message between two universities within a particular US state back in 1987.
While the internet opened the floodgates of information sharing in about 1993, another trend emerged within a decade or so when there was a separation of “quality news” from “commercial interests” which was much more about entertainment.
As a result, because of the primacy of commercial interests, publications became commodities that were no different to other goods that are available for “purchase”. Out of this there emerged “venal journalism for political and commercial ends”, and ethics became a secondary consideration. This was part of Svetlana Pasti’s findings on a “new generation of journalists” and the rise of the internet. Pasti is with the Centre for Journalism, Media and Communication at the University of Tampere in Finland.
As an old-timer in the media, I am often disturbed by the blurred lines between journalists; journalism becoming commodified; and the contrived tensions between “the market” and journalism, news production and dissemination.
There is also the painful process of picking a side, any side as long as it’s “the” right side, as opposed to getting as close to the truth as humanly possible. I remember the ease with which journalists in Washington DC sided with Nato and I with Yugoslavia in 1999; I was conveniently, I guess, between academic journeys and graduate studies. So maybe I was freer to pick a side…
It makes for great disillusionment, but there is never a time when you give up completely. What is most disturbing is the ethical gaps that fall between traditional journalism and the everyone-is-a-journalist positions; it has simply complicated the journalistic identity. Do a quick study of news media and see how many people have made a seamless transition from just about any craft or profession into “journalism”…
Read more in Daily Maverick: Putin takes hard line on Ukraine in Tucker Carlson interview
I am not alone in this state of befuddlement. The question, “who is a journalist”, is important to some of us and not to others. In an online discussion hosted by the Poynter Institute, one reporter was adamant that “we all know what a journalist is, and it’s silliness to argue about it,” and another dismissed the whole matter as “just so much sanctimonious bullshit”. This is what happens “when old and new media collide”.
Out of this there was born “social journalism”, “activist journalism” and “advocacy journalism” which, I am sure, has been around for much longer than the internet has been with us. In the 1980s, when I cut my teeth as a photographer, reporter and make-believe sub-editor, a small group of us were referred to as being part of the “anti-apartheid” media. This, somehow, brings me to the Tucker Carlton interview with Vladimir Putin.
The internet, as we have come to know it, came into being — gradually at first — in the early 1990s. It has been a boon for communication and a slow bust for traditional news media. The internet has also produced an entirely new generation of journalists and photographers, the latter getting a strong nudge with the advent of digital photography.
With all of the above said, I remain loyal to the argument that the news media should be a forum for competing ideas, and never cease to get as close to the truth as possible so that the public can make better decisions.
Unfortunately in its coverage of social conflicts, starting with the triumphalism at the end of the Cold War and gaining momentum in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks, the media in general has been failing to provide a forum for competing ideas and getting as close to the truth as possible.
This has had the effect of intellectually dishonest interpretations of social conflicts and promoting dysfunctional conflict dynamics, often with tragic consequences. DM
That’s a bit rich coming from someone who writes for DM
So true. Well said.
Huge sour grapes from the legacy media, including DM. Well done Tucker for scooping them all. It was a great interview and nice to hear the Russian point of view for a change. By the way Ismail quoting the Guardian, doesn’t do anything to promote your cause. It merely labels you as a “Guardian Reader”. Not something to be proud of.
Tucker did not scoop anything. Other reputable media outlets have wanted to interview Putin, but he denied for some reason. Also let us not forget that in a trial, Tucker’s own defense claimed that his utterances could not be considered truthful and are more for entertainment purposes. The “‘general tenor’ of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal commentary.’ ” Google it if you don’t know.
I also read (every morning before breakfast) the SCMP, FT, Straits Times, Malaysiakini, Global Times, The Hindu etc etc
Agreed. It seems that we are only supposed to be reading what we are told to read….
Is it your implication that every story and every journalist at DM is biased? If so perhaps you should find an alternative source.
Really?
Tuckers lawyers successfully defended him in court by testifying that what Tucker says cannot be taken as fact.
He is not a journalist, he is a propagandist and quite at home with Putin.
Although I am against Putin’s war, the interview, from what I read (and here one must be careful of the false news distributed by journalists worldwide), has inadvertently exposed Putin’s real motives for his invasion of Ukraine. It seems he admitted that he wants to incorporate Ukraine into the Russian federation for historical reasons and not for the thread of NATO or the “nazification” that he initially claimed to be his motivation. Quite an expensive price to pay by Russian citizens to satisfy Putin’s nostalgia. Lagardien must just be careful to silence opposing views to his own, while proclaiming freedom of speech.
In this article Lagardien shows his own bias and can not point fingers. Disappointed.
The only “bias” I express is opposition to violence. Not sure what you read.
Do you mean that your opposition to violence is the only “bias” you admit to?
You should watch the interview. Putin has been consistent in what he wants from the outset – the denazification, demilitarisation, and neutral status of Ukraine.
He would also want the Continuous Russian linguistic regions of Crimea, Donbas, southern parts of Odesa and Zaporizhzhia oblasts to be incorporated into Russia in some form or other. The Russian speaking citizens of these southern and eastern oblasts have long been targeted by the Nazi-leaning groups and Banderites.
The denazification of Ukraine would mean that Nazi ideology will be outlawed, Nazi symbology will be banned, the worship of Nazi heroes like Stepan Bandera will be forbidden, and Nazi-leaning groups like the Azov Battalion, Right Sector, C14, Aidar, Tornado, Dnipro, Kraken, and other Nazi groups will be officially disbanded and made illegal. This is the problem for the USA and UK, who have been funding these groups for decades.
You were on the side of Milosevic?
Oh dear, what a shame that a freelance journalist with an excellent CV should bring another point of view to the attention of the general public. Tut, tut, tut. Nothing like sour grapes. As for the “sheer audacity” of Carlson to do his job, well, shame on him!
The article above insults the general public as much as it insults Carlson. We, the “great unwashed” are clearly not allowed to make our own mind up about what we see, hear and read and that the “real journalists” should determine what we see, hear and read for us. Shame on you.
I really cannot see how you reached these conclusions from reading this article.
It’s ok, we understand
Understand what?
your inability to grasp simple concepts and constructs
The article is well written and brings out the reasons how the authors arrives at his opinion. If there is one person who does not want the public to think then it is Carlson.
I’m sorry if you didn’t understand the sarcasm in my post. My point is that Carlson has been/is being heavily criticised not just for the content of his interview but also the fact that he did the interview at all. We should be allowed to see/read/hear all opinions and facts, and then we can make our own mind up. Much of the corporate controlled media around the world (but mainly the USA) is in severe meltdown that Carlson had the audacity to do the interview at all! Yes, it wasn’t “perfect” but it was for sure very interesting and it’s now up to other real journalists to dissect the information and opinions and give us some interesting feedback.
@Niek Joubert, Please do not fall for the Russia propaganda that it has historical reasons. Where should it stop? Just have a look at the former Mongolian president, who after the so call interview, posted a historical map of the Mongolian empire on X, with a tiny Russia next to it. What Russia is doing is a imperalistic war nothing more and it has nothing to do with NATO, or all the other lies.
How bizarre. I wonder what attracts people from the “alternative truth” universe to comment so critically and grumpily on an article that seemed to me considered, careful, honest, serious, thoughtful, non-confrontational. Or perhaps a different version of the article ended up in my inbox?
Spot on!
I don’t normally agree with Ismail Lagardien’s views, but on this one I have to say that he is spot on. Tucker Carlson’s interview was more about developing his business aspirations than proper journalism. He did indeed lose his way. Real journalism is poorer for his effort.
Agree, this interview was more about Tucker than objectivity!
While I have nothing but contempt for both Trump & Tucker, I find it disconcerting that both the left & the right media want to decide what I may or may not read or watch, and what I should or shouldn’t believe. It’s almost like they think they have the right to make this decision for us, that we are all to stupid and misguided to think for ourselves, that only a small bunch of self declared intellectuals actually know whats happening.
And with all due respect, I consider some of what you write as misinformation (like putting Jordan Peterson in the same league as Tate or Trump, or framing criticism of the ANC as Afro-pessimism and Schadenfreude by rabid right wingers).
Lately I have seen many articles on DM that simply omit uncomfortable truths if they don’t fit into some kind of political agenda or social/activist view. This means that I am actually forced to look at other news sources, as I cannot trust even a respectable publication such as DM to give me the whole truth.
I do however understand where you are coming from (would we platform someone like Hitler in the name of freedom of speech, I think not!), but these are extreme cases, and not what we are currently seeing. But it shouldn’t be the journalist that makes that decision.
I really do wonder what has happened to reasoned & centrist viewpoints, take the Hamas Israel conflict where its either terrorists that kill without reason, or evil settlers that want to wipe out a race. There is nothing in-between it seems.
Apologies, I meant Putin and Tucker, but Trump belongs in that group to.
Well said! I do not need or want the curatorship of the media I choose to read.
I am very intrigued that the DM has (and continues to) curate any mention of the man made Chinese virus (‘science’ and the vaccines that killed millions and disrupted the social, political and economic well being of humanity.
Is silence defending truth?
I dont always enjoy Ismail Lagardien’s writing but this is a fantastic article. Journalism in its purest form should always seek to find the truth. However a good journalist would also filter through the interview and double check claims and ‘facts’ that are stated. The final product shouldnt be an open forum that gives legitimacy to the subject of the interview.
Carlson was chosen by the Kremlin because they knew he would be a soft touch.
This is a growing problem. I suppose it’s been a long time coming, but we now have many people who are functioning as reporters – telling us what is going on and why. But they do little investigation, and there is no checking of what they are about to say. And we increasingly see an audience that wants to hear what they want to hear and won’t enquire about what they’re being told as long as they like it. This frustrates me enormously, and maybe speaks of a very polarised world. People I knew and who I admired for their critical thinking, now just parrot the latest conspiracy theory about Democrats and child trafficking, about climate change, about Israel (did you know that Nethanyahu purposely allowed October 7th to happen?).
What a misnomer ‘Maverick’ has become. Now just one of the herd.
One sees the same thing in the Gaza tragedy, where journalists (or are they?) walk right past the torture and beheading of children to say “Yes but Israel must behave!”, are quite matter of fact about hostage taking, and unquestioningly accept Hamas propaganda claims of the number of dead children in the conflict, knowing that only pro-Hamas journalists are allowed to go among Hamas in Gaza.
I am happy to have watched that interview, however long it was…
Is Putin a nice guy? Nope… Is he an autocrat? Yes… is he imprisoning people who disagree with him? Yes… does he have Russia’s best interests at heart? I think so. I think it is pretty clear, he wants no Nato bases on his border and he wants control of the black sea port. And he wants russian speaking people that are being persecuted by the neo-nazis in ukraine, freed. Is he right to be worried about Nato not sticking to the minsk agreement? Yes… does he have to be worried about the western media painting russia in a poor light? Yes…
Is the west any better? No… they just do all of this behind the scenes whilst preaching the gospel of democracy and rigtheous indignation.
I will listen to everyone i can. But honestly only to learn how this world is working right now… not to pick a side… let him with no sin cast the first stone…
What mr Lagardien does not quite acknowledge here is that the media needs a bogeyman… putin will do… america needed a war… they staged a coup on putin’s backdoor, when they pretty well knew that it crossed a line drawn in the sand, they need destruction in a friendly state so they can send in contractors to repair for an economic boost and they need to strengthen their control over ukraine’s natural resources…
The media will gladly take the bogeyman story and run with it… it sells and the media is owned by the same people who fund these efforts.
I thought this was a very interesting dissection of how the media has evolved in recent years, not sure where some of the opprobrium in the comments has come from! Personally, I like to read and watch news from a variety of sources and viewpoints to see what others think – back in the early 90s one of the remarkable things about the transition here was the ability – and willingness – of the Nats and ANC to listen to each other’s viewpoints and understand where they were coming from. Alas, those days are sadly long gone. The only line in the sand for me is overt propaganda, like Russia Today or IOL, or Fox News, which are beyond the pale in their stances. Some may think these are fine sources of news, that’s okay, I can only speak from my own viewpoint.
Because the writer states in the opening paragraphs that giving putin an interview was the wrong thing to do and just because carlson did it, he must be some form of the bought and paid for shills that the various types of journalism amount to?
It’s really disappointing when one is expected to say (something like).
1. I loathe x
2. I stand by y
Adding that nothing will change my mind because everything is permanent, and “good people” can’t be bad, and “bad people” can’t be good. It seems, also, that there are “enemies” and “bad people” whom we have to condemn every day, and whenever anything else is discussed, you’re accused of being an “enabler” because you have not condemned something or someone when you woke up on a particular day. The social world is infinitely more complex than our expectations. Today you agree with someone, tomorrow (when you disagree) you hate them… Tragic, really.
100% – and thanks for taking the time to engage BTL, very few contributors here (or on any news site) bother to do so.
There was no Yugoslavia in 1999.
The Carlson / Putin interview came across like a scripted infomercial (for the Trump campaign?).
don’t normally agree with Ismail Lagardien’s views, but on this one I have to say that he is spot on. Tucker Carlson’s interview was more about developing his business aspirations than proper journalism. He did indeed lose his way. Real journalism is poorer for his effort.
Hillary Clinton`s words ” Putin`s useful idiot” nailed it.
So just commentary on the deplorable state of journalism then, justifiably so, although a bit self-righteously, with not even a suggestion for remedying the situation, and no clear opinion on the actual interview (I take this for an opinion piece), and so the title is a bit misleading and I rather regret taking the time to read it.
What a sad world we live in. All the tolerance for another opinion is gone in the name of “political correctness”, the most evil of the euphemisms and oxymorons. I usually find Mr. Lagardien’s articles stimulating whether I like his opinions or not. And I respect his opinions even if I don’t agree with them. I think he should afford others the same courtesy. If nothing else, Tucker Carlton has communicated with Putin, albeit too late. Before starting the invasion, Putin repeatedly tried to negotiate with NATO and US (the same thing actually). It is just possible that the war could have been avoided if anybody talked to him. This is probably the most preventable war in history. But the West underestimated Putin as an evil lame duck. Well, he might be evil but he and Russia turned out to be no lame ducks. Now the same West is forcing Israel to negotiate with terrorists in one of the probably least preventable wars. Go figure. As one of the most respected people in my life used to say: “Always look beyond the obvious”.
As Tuckers Fox’s lawyers stated in court what Tucker says cannot be taken as fact. He is a propagandist not a journalist.