Tucker Carlson is a top-rated conservative commentator selected by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people. Why does he persevere with his pro-Russia line?
Which everyday at eight o’clock in the evening, millions of Americans gather in front of the television for the same man.
She is Tucker Carlson, a grandiose television presenter and political commentator. His title show on Fox Tucker Carlson Tonight has about three million viewers, often the most popular program of the day on news channels.
Carlson appeals to the audience a lot on the same themes as the former president Donald Trump: he mocks democrats, liberals and the rights of sexual minorities and incites xenophobia. The key theme of the last couple of years has been the reprimand for interest rate restrictions.
For some, Carlson is a clown whose speech should be let in from one ear in and out of the other. He’s spoken so rudely for so long that it’s hard for him to say anything that would really startle the audience.
Recently, however, his line has caused many supporters to frown as well.
It is known that parts of his program have also been instructed to be presented in the Russian state media.
Russian After the invasion of Ukraine, Finland has been closely monitoring the Russian media’s coverage of the war.
Less attention has been paid to how the attack is handled in the United States. And what’s in it: in the United States, news coverage of the war in Ukraine is essentially high quality. The attack is tirelessly monitored on cable channels.
The differences become apparent in the political analysis. Simplified: The judicial media believe that the war in Ukraine is largely under the auspices of the President of the United States Joe Biden reason or at least he could have handled the situation better. The liberal media, on the other hand, overemphasize Biden’s stubbornness in dealing with the situation.
Carlson has its own chapter.
Foxin prime time viewers of the programs have been accustomed to the pro-Russian attitude of the presenters for years. Fox played an important role in Trump’s efforts to present the Russian president Vladimir Putin as a neutral actor and an ally of the American political right.
Fox has also been portrayed as the prime minister of Hungary, for example Viktor Orbánista “documentary” Hungary vs. Soros – The Struggle for Civilization. It describes the transformation of Hungary into a paradise for national conservatives, taught by its leader, which has succeeded in defeating illegal immigration, for example.
Carlson however, has continued despite the fact that Russia has become increasingly aggressive.
Just a couple of days before the attack, when Russia had already deployed more than 100,000 troops to the Ukrainian border, Carlson asked Americans to reflect on their own relationship with Russia. He described the situation in Ukraine as a “border dispute” and asked why Americans should despise Putin.
He made it clear that the real enemy is to be found in the United States (and its liberal wing) – by no means in Russia.
He is also followed Putin that the war in Ukraine would be about self-defense, and stated that the purpose of NATO’s existence is to tease Putin.
Since the attack began, Carlson has changed his tone in the direction that Putin is not the only one bad guy. He has also taken the habit of saying that the attack is “wrong” and sometimes criticizes Putin as well.
However, he is still disseminated by conspiracy theorists and Russian a false theory that the United States would fund biological weapons laboratories in Ukraine. In support of his contention he likes undersecretary Victoria Nulandin statement that there are laboratories in Ukraine for biological research.
Illustratively, there are Russian state media outlets since the start of the war reportedly prompted to show clips from Carlson’s program.
“He’s guaranteed to provide good material!” exclaims the professor of journalism Philip Seib.
The day before the interview, he has watched a series in which Carlson repeatedly appointed the President of Ukraine. Volodymyr Zelensky dictator.
“Then in Russia it can be said that‘ look, this remarkable and well-known American journalist calls Zelensky a dictator, ’” Seib updates.
“He acts as the Kremlin’s echo chamber.”
Seibin the episode mentioned was a parade example of how Carlson distorts the meanings of things.
Carlson, for example, said Zelenskyi blocked popular channels in Ukraine that had been criticized by three TV companies.
this is truebut the channels belonged to two pro-Russian oligarchs and spread Russian propaganda.
Carlson also claimed that Zelenskyi has banned political opposition in the country and turned Ukraine into a one-party system.
In reality, Zelenskyi denied it after the Russian invasion eleven the activities of a party with close ties to Russia. Only one of these parties had representatives in the Ukrainian parliament. It was the largest opposition party led by a Ukrainian oligarch affiliated with Putin Viktor Medvedchuk. There are still other opposition parties in Parliament, for example Peter Poroshenko and Yulia Tymoshenko parties.
In itself one might think that there is nothing new in the whole picture: in Europe, many right-wing populist parties have admired the Russian leader and his hard line for a long time.
National Conservative party leaders – like France Marine Le Pen and Italian Matteo Salvini – but started quickly take the distance To Putin after the attack began.
Carlson has filed his line, but he has not made any nest differences in his old comments.
Professor Seib does not quite understand the purpose of Carlson’s propaganda on Russia.
“This is an amazing thing. It is a mystery to me why he wants to keep the Kremlin happy. ”
The general climate in the United States is now very anti-Putin.
Essential the question, of course, is what the consequences will be.
How much can Carlson and other prominent figures on the far right influence the wider media debate or the politics of the Republican Party, for example? How does the line affect Russia?
Researcher specializing in the information war in Russia Thomas Rid described The New York Times –to the magazinethat the far right in the United States affects Russia and vice versa. So they feed each other.
“They both pursue the same perspectives,” he said, noting that cross-comments can have far-reaching consequences. According to Ridi, they could exacerbate the dichotomy in the United States and affect the by-elections in November.
They can also create a wedge in the right and divide it into two camps: those in favor of Russia and those who are demanding that the United States provide more military support to Ukraine.
So far, Republicans have been fairly united in demanding more robust military support for Ukraine than President Joe Biden has agreed to admit. They are quite unanimous condemned Putin’s actions.
Seibin Carlson’s influence is particularly insidious because he wraps it around a popular approach.
However, he does not want to exaggerate Carlson’s ability to influence American thinking. He thinks the general climate in the United States is now very anti-Putin.
“Putin is now widely hit in America in a very bad light: the news shows the dead children of the war and the enormous damage the war has done to Ukraine. In that sense, I think Carlson is cornered. ”
He believes Carlson and other conservative commentators are starting to shift the focus back to domestic politics, which is the main concern and the most inflammatory factor for their primary audience.
“The appointment of a judge of the Supreme Court, for example, is associated with racial suspicion. It is fertile ground, not foreign policy. ”
#United #States #American #star #presenter #spreads #conspiracy #theory #Ukraine #millions #Professor #puzzled #Russian #propaganda