Article Under Scrutiny
Tucker Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin – Article by The Financial Express, India through Microsoft News
Vladimir Putin’s Interview by Tucker Carlson: A Critique of the Western Media’s Bias and Misinformation
The Financial Express makes several biased and unsubstantiated claims against the Russian Federation and their current president Vladimir Putin. Through their eastern eyeballs, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin stands solely responsible for massacring civilians, causing mutiny in the army, and deserves the ICC’s declaration of war criminal charges. These allegations are not backed by any evidence or sources and are presented as facts without any compliments, counterarguments or alternative perspectives. It is worth noting that for crimes committed against communities living in the conflict zones between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, a multitude of contributory Agents are actively supporting the war, NATO joint military alliance, Ukraine, United States, and Russia. Dismissing the active expansion of a joint military alliance, or the similarities of the joint alliance to the former Soviet Union alliance, or the uncertainty originating from such deliberate encroachment for the Russian nation is naivety and misleading to the public eye. Advocating for peaceful conflict resolutions is evidently alien to the publication which exposes their obsessive need to report first rather than right. That the publication adores a front yard with the ever-shifting eyeballs even when the cost is a misfed, misled generation of consumers.
The publication starts off dismissing Putin’s version of European history as “personalized and highly questionable”, without acknowledging the historical context and complexity of the region. Failure to recognize the cultural, linguistic, and religious ties between Russia and Ukraine is tainted in historical denial and a deliberate disregard of one’s communal origin. The two nations are intertwined and feed off each other. They deserve a pronoun label mutualistic symbiosis. While the e-paper’s witty acknowledgement of the disputes over the territory and how they morphed into existence is admirable, their misguided attempts to control a narration broadcasted into eyeballed-shapeshifters are frivolous and non-essential. The author strangely ignores the role of the West, the United States, in active funding of the war through printables, the role of NATO in active provocation through expansion, the role of the EU, the UK, in active support through misguided foreign advising and participation. The Russian federation have legitimate security concerns over the said military expansion.
The piece shows a lack of objectivity and balance in the analysis of the interview and the situation in Ukraine. Criticizing Carlson for not asking “uncomfortable questions” and for giving the President of the Russian Federation an opportunity to put forward their historical archives, and his views on the contributory factors of the ongoing war is concerning for a publication established to inform, document, and educate the public eye. More so, discrediting Carlson’s shear hard work in harpooning the right shark for his hawkeyed eyeballs at the right time, is unlike any educator’s, writer’s, reporter’s, librarian’s, custodian’s, or historian’s motivation behind their penmanship. Carlson’s accreditation for the rarity of the conversation and the impact it has on the current media broadcasting is vital in promoting bravery in journalistic acumen. It is a blueprint for documentations that yearn for the installation of a global stage for conversationists and critical thinkers that proof fearless to the sensitivity of their discussions.
It is with deliberate intent that the writer offers projections of the conflict with a tasteless game analogy but fails to outline any constructive suggestions or solutions for resolving the conflict. Notably, the author’s active involvement in conflict zones and their presence within a military industry (extensive enough to earn the label veteran) births no viable peaceful resolutions.
Considering the above, it’s clear that the Kremlin’s efforts to elucidate the historical intricacies of Russia and Ukraine have been instrumental in shedding light on the often-overlooked narratives. This has not only challenged the prevailing Western discourse but also underscored the need for a more nuanced understanding of the geopolitical dynamics at play. The exposure of the roles of the United States, NATO, and the CIA in influencing the course of peaceful negotiations [non-conflict-based resolutions] highlights the complexity of international relations and the importance of transparency. It is with great disappointment to the public eye that information surrounding an alternative that could have prevented war is being presented, through firsthand parties and via a conversation believed to be disposable by the author, this late into the discussion.
It is crucial for the global public eye to approach matters concerning the ongoing wars with compassion, sensitivity, and an open mind. Our readiness to consume, question, learn, educate, and document must not succumb to the need to report first even when the risks are misinformation and deliberate hostile take overs of the international relation narratives. The dire need to influence an eyeball shift within a society portrayed in this piece surpasses the need for a constructive conversation surrounding conflict resolution on a global stage. Stripping off Carlson’s efforts to inform and converse in this tiny desk conversation (on a global stage) is no fair judgement. It reeks of discontent. It is biased reporting and evidently contains traces of discreditation of the importance of global stages and the dire need for journalistic bravery. Given our observational report provided, it is no surprise that The Financial Express, India dissociates with the author’s voice while adopting a tone of consumption biasness.
Author Under the Scope:Air Commodore TK Chatterjee (retired), Former Indian Air Force