Reminder for the anti-free speech Americans complaining about Tucker Carlson interviewing Putin…Recall that Dan Rather interviewed Saddam in 2003.

[FranklinRoosevelt_FTW]

One way to try and destroy somebody’s image these days in the west at least for poorly informed Democrats and neoconservatives …is to attempt to paint somebody as a “Russian agent”, or a “Putin sympathizer”.. it’s not literally the same thing as preventing free speech but of course if somebody is viewed as an enemy agent or a sympathizer for a perceived enemy… for all intents and purposes their views mean nothing.

In the minds of the misinformed or easily persuaded doing an interview with Vladimir Putin make somebody a “Russian agent”. It’s one of the most absurd ideas we’ve recently heard of. By that logic, Dan Rather one of the most well-known and respected western journalists… was an agent of Iraq and Saddam Hussain for interviewing Hussain right before America’s invasion of Iraq in 2003.



Going by the logic of Democrats and neocons today here’s what they would’ve said about Dan Rather.

“ oh look at Dan rather he’s an appeaser for the Ba’ath party”

“Saddam lackey “

And that interview came in a time when the Democrat party and it’s voters were for a huge part well informed and capable people. They were not brainwashed by BLM and radical feminist hysteria ideology. Unfortunately a chunk of today’s Democrat voters are basically like neoconservatives of 20 years ago.

Hopefully as we go into the future the Democratic Party and many of its voters will come back to its traditions of standing up for common sense and the working man ….and that includes hearing what foreign leaders have to say.

 

[pknopp]

I care less who he interviews. He's a proven liar so I'm not real sure why anyone would allow themselves to be interviewed by him but whatever.

 

[konradv]

One way to try and destroy somebody’s image these days in the west at least for poorly informed Democrats and neoconservatives …is to attempt to paint somebody as a “Russian agent”, or a “Putin sympathizer”.. it’s not literally the same thing as preventing free speech but of course if somebody is viewed as an enemy agent or a sympathizer for a perceived enemy… for all intents and purposes their views mean nothing.

In the minds of the misinformed or easily persuaded doing an interview with Vladimir Putin make somebody a “Russian agent”. It’s one of the most absurd ideas we’ve recently heard of. By that logic, Dan Rather one of the most well-known and respected western journalists… was an agent of Iraq and Saddam Hussain for interviewing Hussain right before America’s invasion of Iraq in 2003.



Going by the logic of Democrats and neocons today here’s what they would’ve said about Dan Rather.

“ oh look at Dan rather he’s an appeaser for the Ba’ath party”

“Saddam lackey “

And that interview came in a time when the Democrat party and it’s voters were for a huge part well informed and capable people. They were not brainwashed by BLM and radical feminist hysteria ideology. Unfortunately a chunk of today’s Democrat voters are basically like neoconservatives of 20 years ago.

Hopefully as we go into the future the Democratic Party and many of its voters will come back to its traditions of standing up for common sense and the working man ….and that includes hearing what foreign leaders have to say.

Rather didn’t do a propaganda piece along with the interview; Carlson did!

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

Rather didn’t do a propaganda piece along with the interview; Carlson did!

Sure thing propaganda spreader... amazing.

 

[Resnic]

Granted it was a few years before he officially took power but Hitler was interviewed by an American woman who saw him as what he was.

https://fee.org/articles/meet-the-first-american-journalist-to-interview-hitler-and-the-first-expelled-from-nazi-germany/

I don't understand the hate towards Tucker for interviewing Putin. As a journalist the best news is often the uncommonly popular news. All we hear in America is "Putin bad. Putin Trump's butt buddy. Putin this and Putin that" but no media has actually presented anything from his point of view. It's all extremely one sided, biased and of narrow scope.

Not saying Putin is a saint, but if you're going to cover something like a war then anyone that is involved in news should cover both sides. One sided only to me isn't news, it's propaganda.

I still believe the root of all the evil and wrong in American media outlets can be traced back to bill Clinton. That's where it started.

Democracy in Peril: Twenty Years of Media Consolidation Under the Telecommunications Act

In 1996, President Clinton signed the bill into law. Today, the media industry is donating big to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

truthout.org