Tucker has discussed this before & I don't understand why this isn't self-evident: Interviewing subjects is not indicative of agreement. This is similar to saying that Jake Tapper interviewing Donald Trump means Tapper is in full agreement with him. Having a discussion w/ someone is just that...a discussion. That's it.
Your point here is a black eye on what journalism has become, not on Tucker, imo.
Moose, I’m sorry but that’s just not the case here, at all, and I’m surprised you would still defend Tucker at this point.
Of course journalists can and should interview controversial figures and cover controversial topics. That’s not what Tucker does. He knowingly provides a platform for propaganda and validates it with his tone, manner and words.
Here is how Tucker introduces this historian in his tweet with the full interview:
“Darryl Cooper may be the best and most honest popular historian in the United States. His latest project is the most forbidden of all: trying to understand World War Two.”
Best and most honest? By whose standard? Who beyond Tucker has ever said that and what are their qualifications for determining such an objective evaluation of a historian?
Cooper isn’t even a historian by any traditional definition. He is a “largely self taught” podcaster known for controversial takes on a number of topics. But Tucker sets him up as not just a serious historian, but the “best and most honest”. That’s full validation and endorsement before the interview even starts.
Tucker not only completely fails to challenge even the most basic fallacies promoted by this guy, he validates them at every opportunity.
The clip I shared was about the Nazis being caught unprepared in 1941 to handle the POWs and “local political prisoners” (meaning Jews, gypsies, communists, gays and other undesirables) in their camp facilities. The first concentration camp, Dachau (perhaps you’ve heard of it) opened in March, 1933. That’s two months after Hitler first took power. Weird how the Nazis were supposedly caught unprepared in 1941. That’s a total joke of a position. It’s historically indefensible and a serious journalist would call it out as such.
And perhaps the fact the Hitler set up his first concentration camp two months after taking power and eight years before the time period referenced by this “historian” undercuts the argument that Churchill was the “true villain” and ultimately responsible for WW2?
It would be like interviewing David Duke and introducing him as the leading and most respected voice on race relations in the country and then agreeing with his many statements about the superiority of the white race.
But of course this is what we get from Tucker. Just like his propaganda tour where he walked the “model” grocery store in Moscow and promoted how much better and more affordable it was than the US, completely ignoring the average income differences of the two countries and the fact that what he was touring was in no way the average experience in Russia. That and more about that trip was straight Russian propaganda.
Tucker is a propagandist, not a serious journalist.
