The real bias is in the silence on the big picture

The media's coverage of Tucker Carlson's interview with Putin has been exemplary in selective outrage and historical amnesia. While Tucker opts for a long-form discussion, allowing Putin to articulate his views, the media fixates on the spectacle, ignoring the nuanced points about NATO expansion and the complex history of Russia-Ukraine relations. It's as if the concept of context was left at the door, replaced by a simplistic narrative that paints a picture as black and white as an old Western movie, where the U.S. always wears the white hat, despite decades of foreign policy faux pas.

A monologue for the West, but not the one they wanted to hear

The interview, rather than being seen as an opportunity to delve into the meat of geopolitical dynamics, is waved off by the media as Putin's monologue, ignoring the inconvenient truths about U.S. and NATO's roles in the escalation. The focus on a jailed journalist, while important, serves as a distraction from larger, more systemic issues like the relentless march of NATO eastward, which, according to the media's narrative, apparently has all the subtlety and grace of a ballet performed by elephants. It's as though the history of U.S.-Russia relations began in 2014, with all prior actions magically absolved or forgotten. Tucker's attempt to bring long-form journalism back to the fore is mocked as naivety, or worse, complicity, proving once again that if you're not with the mainstream narrative, you're against it—or so the gatekeepers of truth would have you believe.