3 ms·
Or, more likely, people want to see the interview of a world leader by a well known and popular journalist, and it being on a site already used by hundreds of m
by DoItToMe81 3y ago
Or, more likely, people want to see the interview of a world leader by a well known and popular journalist, and it being on a site already used by hundreds of millions of people means word spreads easily.
- aredox 3y agoTucker Carlson is not, under any definition of the word, a journalist. This was stated under oath by Fox News lawyers themselves. Also, the Kremlin has refused all interviews by journalists (contrary to the lie spouted by Tucker Carlson himself) and is putting in prisons actual journalists.
- SilverBirch 3y agoIf there weren't such a well documented and transparent history of X/Musk/Russia lying, misleading, bullshitting and manipulating then maybe we would believe that. But I wouldn't advise taking Russia's propagandists at face value.
- filoleg 3y agoArguably, Trump had “a well documented history of lying, misleading, bullshitting, etc.”, and yet he was making a killing during his 2016 election run both for social media and the traditional media (cnn, nyt, etc.) companies. You couldn’t sneeze without seeing something about him somewhere. Why? Because people actually tuned into this and wanted to see it, and the media companies are in the business of making money exactly off of that. Doesn’t matter if it is about lies or misleading statements or whatever. It is noteworthy enough and is of interest to people, so they will watch. I don’t see how listing out all the ways in which both Carlson and Putin suck is somehow supposed to prove that this is all just bots and cannot be organic interest at all.