I agree that interviewing an adversary is not improper per se. And perhaps Tucker's critics erroneously conflate his habit of fawning over Russia with the act of interviewing Putin itself. But still, we know that Tucker did not interview Putin for purposes of journalism, but to throw red meat to a MAGA fanbase. The criticism of Tucker that Jilani cites may be imprecise and off-base, but it is still broadly correct. Tucker is not a journalist. He is there to platform a dictator, and an enemy of the US.
Thank goodness for Zaid Jilani's lone voice in the wilderness, reminding us of the proper place of journalism in a functioning democracy. Tragically, "functioning" seems to be falling by the wayside.
Although I couldn't read his whole article because I'm not a paid subscriber to the Public Substack, I got Jilani's point from the title of the article and its opening paragraphs.
Of course one of the obligations of a society with a free press is to inform its citizens about everything that's relevant to our survival. Jilani's first paragraph says it perfectly.
I watched the whole interview. I didn't see Carlson pandering or enabling Putin. Rather, Carlson gave Putin lots of room to display his manipulative, smug style. More importantly, I learned the historical rationalizations that Putin uses to justify his war against Ukraine. Inscrutable Putin is not nearly as clever as he believes himself to be, and it helps to hear it from his own mouth.
When we censor journalism on the basis of fear, opinions, and party affiliations, we deny ourselves the power of knowledge and truth. Why do we prefer ignorance?
I agree that interviewing an adversary is not improper per se. And perhaps Tucker's critics erroneously conflate his habit of fawning over Russia with the act of interviewing Putin itself. But still, we know that Tucker did not interview Putin for purposes of journalism, but to throw red meat to a MAGA fanbase. The criticism of Tucker that Jilani cites may be imprecise and off-base, but it is still broadly correct. Tucker is not a journalist. He is there to platform a dictator, and an enemy of the US.
Thank goodness for Zaid Jilani's lone voice in the wilderness, reminding us of the proper place of journalism in a functioning democracy. Tragically, "functioning" seems to be falling by the wayside.
Although I couldn't read his whole article because I'm not a paid subscriber to the Public Substack, I got Jilani's point from the title of the article and its opening paragraphs.
Of course one of the obligations of a society with a free press is to inform its citizens about everything that's relevant to our survival. Jilani's first paragraph says it perfectly.
I watched the whole interview. I didn't see Carlson pandering or enabling Putin. Rather, Carlson gave Putin lots of room to display his manipulative, smug style. More importantly, I learned the historical rationalizations that Putin uses to justify his war against Ukraine. Inscrutable Putin is not nearly as clever as he believes himself to be, and it helps to hear it from his own mouth.
When we censor journalism on the basis of fear, opinions, and party affiliations, we deny ourselves the power of knowledge and truth. Why do we prefer ignorance?