By Michael J. Socolow
Tucker Carlson, the conservative former cable TV news pundit, recently traveled to Moscow to interview Russian dictator Vladimir Putin for his Tucker Carlson Network, known as TCN.
The two-hour interview itself proved dull. Even Putin found Carlson’s soft questioning “disappointing.” Very little from the interview was newsworthy.
Other videos Carlson produced while in Russia, however, seemed to spark far more significant commentary. Carlson marveled at the beauty of the Moscow subway and seemed awed by the cheap prices in a Russian supermarket. He found the faux McDonald’s – rebranded “Tasty-period” – cheeseburgers delicious.
As a scholar of broadcast propaganda, I believe Carlson’s work provides an opportunity for public education in distinguishing between propaganda and journalism. Some Americans, primarily Carlson’s fans, will view the videos as accurate reportage. Others, primarily Carlson’s detractors, will reject them as mendacious propaganda.
But closely considering these categories, and evaluating Carlson’s work in context, might deepen public understanding of the distinction between journalism and propaganda in the American context.
Promoting authoritarians
Carlson’s ability to secure the Putin interview was commendable. Interviewing dictators – even the most murderous ones, such as Cambodia’s Pol Pot – can represent a significant journalistic achievement.
Yet, Carlson’s listless approach to the Russian dictator, who droned on endlessly, proved a wasted opportunity. Despite Carlson’s passivity, the interview did, in fact, reveal aspects of Putin’s intentions likely unknown to many Americans. For example, Putin blamed Poland for provoking Hitler’s attack on the country in 1939, which sparked World War II – a statement at odds with the facts. He also seemed to signal his desire to attack Poland, or another neighbor, in the near future. Had Carlson’s trip concluded with the interview, it might have been judged journalistically worthwhile.
Yet, that’s not what Carlson did.
Producing a travelogue, Carlson toured Moscow and made videos extolling the glories of Russian society, culture and governance. The Moscow subway impressed him, while the low prices in a Russian supermarket “radicalized” him “against our American leaders.”
‘Classic case of propaganda’
There are numerous ways to evaluate the truthfulness of Carlson’s reports.
For example, if things are as copacetic in Russia as Carlson claims, then emigration out of the country should be minimal, or at least normal. Yet, since the 2022 Ukraine war mobilization, Russians have fled their country in historically high numbers.
Even those cheap supermarket prices Carlson loved are a mirage. They exist only through subsidies, and with Russia’s continued devaluation of the ruble in 2024, combined with a planned huge increase in military spending, Russia’s government continues to make every Russian poorer to fund its war.
In other words, what’s cheap to Carlson is expensive and getting more expensive for almost all Russians. This trend will continue in 2024, as Putin recently projected Russia’s inflation rate to be 8% in 2024 – more than double the projection for the United States. In fact, a Russian citizen complained directly to Putin in December 2023 about the price of eggs, and Putin uncharacteristically apologized.
But research shows that fact-checking Carlson’s claims is not likely to change many people’s opinions. We know most people don’t appreciate being told their preferred information is inaccurate, and when untruthful reports accord with their perception of reality, they’ll believe them.
Instead of categorizing Carlson’s Russia videos as “reporting,” “journalism,” “information” or “fake news,” we could define it instead as a classic case of propaganda.
Screenshot, The Hill
‘Emotionally potent oversimplifications’
Propaganda is communication designed to bypass critical and rational examination in order to provoke intended emotional, attitudinal or behavioral responses from an audience.
Public understanding of propaganda usually links it to lying, but that’s not quite correct. While some propaganda is mendacious, the most effective propaganda will interlace carefully selected verifiable facts with emotional appeals.
For an average American, those Russian supermarket prices really were cheap. But that’s a selected truth presented without context essential for understanding.
Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr once described propaganda in a democracy as “emotionally potent oversimplifications” peddled to the masses, and that’s precisely what Carlson’s videos seem to provide.
That Carlson has evolved into a propagandist is not surprising. In 2022, The New York Times analyzed his Fox News broadcasts between 2016 and 2021. The paper concluded that Carlson’s program became far less interested in rational dialogue and critical exchange – by interviewing people who disagreed with him – as it evolved into a monologue-driven format in which Carlson preached often factually dubious assertions to his audience.
At one time, early in his career, Carlson demonstrated significant journalistic talent, especially in magazine feature writing. But his dedication to accuracy – and even basic truth-telling – was exposed as a sham when his texts from the Dominion voting machine lawsuit were revealed and illustrated his mendacity.
Distinguishing between Gershkovich and Carlson
Carlson is not the first American reporter to travel to a foreign dictatorship and produce propaganda in the guise of journalism.
The New York Times’ Walter Duranty infamously ignored the Stalin dictatorship’s horrific starvation of millions of Ukrainians in the 1930s. The Times’ Berlin correspondent Guido Enderis specialized in “puffy profiles of leading Nazis” while whitewashing the regime’s more evil aspects in the mid-1930s.
More recently, correspondent Peter Arnett was fired from NBC News for appearing on state-controlled Iraqi TV in 2003 and praising the success of “Iraqi resistance” at the outset of the U.S.-Iraq war. Although Arnett’s comments did not originally appear on NBC, they were rebroadcast widely.
But what makes Carlson’s actions particularly galling to some was that his propaganda appeared while Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich remains imprisoned by Putin’s regime for alleged spying, but which was really accurate reporting from Russia. When Carlson questioned Putin about Gershkovich, the dictator replied that a prisoner exchange might be negotiated.
Ultimately, the distinction between journalism and propaganda is the difference between Gershkovich and Carlson.
Gershkovich sits in a Russian prison for investigating the truth about Putin’s Russia in service to the American public and his employer. Carlson flies around the world praising authoritarian leaders such as Hungary’s Viktor Orban, while “rooting” for dictators like Vladimir Putin when they attack their neighbors. “Why shouldn’t I root for Russia? Which I am,” he said in 2019 about the Ukraine-Russian conflict.
To expose abusive governmental power and hold it accountable “to the opinions of mankind” is literally written in America’s Declaration of Independence. To travel abroad praising dictatorships for their subways and cheeseburgers while ignoring their murderousness, and to return “radicalized … against our leaders” because foreign supermarket prices are low, is certainly not journalism. It is propaganda.
Carlson’s videos may have one beneficial result: If enough Americans learn from them how to detect propaganda and distinguish it from ethical and professional reporting, then perhaps Carlson unintentionally provided a valuable media literacy service to the nation.
Michael J. Socolow is Professor of Communication and Journalism at the University of Maine.
The Conversation arose out of deep-seated concerns for the fading quality of our public discourse and recognition of the vital role that academic experts could play in the public arena. Information has always been essential to democracy. It’s a societal good, like clean water. But many now find it difficult to put their trust in the media and experts who have spent years researching a topic. Instead, they listen to those who have the loudest voices. Those uninformed views are amplified by social media networks that reward those who spark outrage instead of insight or thoughtful discussion. The Conversation seeks to be part of the solution to this problem, to raise up the voices of true experts and to make their knowledge available to everyone. The Conversation publishes nightly at 9 p.m. on FlaglerLive.
Richard says
Anyone that has been to Russia knows that the subways are impressive, yes they need such a service as they lack cars and gas stations. I was their last ten years ago.
It may be better now but incomparable to what we have here.
The real beauty of Russia is visible in their museums and how they value classical music and dance.
They must provide something to the masses as the men work themselves to death to survive and provide for their families. . Yes they need subsidies for food and probably volka is cheap too. And it shows on the population. Very unhappy people for the most part. Very hard to find a smile on anybody.
Yes Tucker it may be beautiful with glorious buildings from the past, but check the statistics on life span and you will see just how hard it is to exist in Russia particularly for men.
Finally anyone that doesn’t know Carlsons family history and that his forefathers were one of the largest property owners of California in history, and good for them. Tucker is privileged and deserves to live in Russia.
Will be a bigger star there than Naples Florida. Yes a sad end to someone who has been privileged his whole life.
Sherry says
Agree Richard. . . when I was last in Russia the “black market” for any and all goods from Europe and the USA were the hot ticket items. The Russian people “dream” of living in the USA!
dave says
Just surprised, trumpo has not chosen this fool of a man to be his VP.
Palm Coast Citizen says
What’s most confusing is differentiating bias from misleading. Journalistic advocacy for a political stance is not quite the same as misleading viewers or readers. We can see bias, but can we see “misleading?” We look to journalist to be unbiased in the way that, if they learn something counter to their initial assumptions, they’ll report it. That happens nowhere on television (at least not in the mainstream). So people are looking for “alternative” news sources, which seemingly uncover the real truth that no one wants to cover, but these alternative sources do not use journalism either.
I’d favor bias–true reporting that is not misleading, if even favorable to one side or the other, than out-and-out misrepresentation of facts, which for entertainment purposes, could be considered “exaggerations” to make points.
We ask for “facts,” but facts, in themselves can be misleading without context. So we’re left looking for the original information, and unless we have the bandwidth to read statutes and bills, company policies, entire statements, we’re not given decent pedestals upon which to really think for ourselves.
Laurel says
I think the current *reporting* started with cable and its availability for 24/7 broadcasting. Walter Cronkite was the “most trusted man in America.” They had one hour (or was it half hour?) to report news of the world. Then we watched variety shows, which were fabulous in the day! The competition was NBC, ABC, CBS and eventually, PBS. Then, at the end of the night, our sets went off air until the morning. Now, they compete for ratings constantly, so they twist the truth and stretch it as far as they can to keep our interest. There are those who flat out make up stuff to keep people on edge. There are Fox watchers and MSNBC watchers who watch all day long, and become furious with the *other side.* But the channels don’t care as long as the ratings are good. They are so willing to send our country down the river as long as the ratings are strong.
I think that PBS Newshour is still good, and BBC is good as well. One hour per day is all that should be broadcast, but we can’t go back so this sad stuff will continue, unless of course, you turn it off.
Michael J Cocchiola says
Carlson is a professional propagandist for Putin’s dictatorship. Every time he opens his mouth he devours democratic principles, not to mention his honor.
I remember many times when some on the left complained about America and were told to leave. Why isn’t the right telling Carlson the same? If he loves Putin and Russia, by all means live there.
As for the intestinal parasites who follow Carlson and believe that vile effluent he spews, why not accompany him and get some of those cheap supermarket prices?
Bill C says
What is not mentioned is the ingredient list for the Russian bread Tucker is holding. It is made with horseshit flour.
DaleL says
I would like to add that the cheap supermarket prices that Carlson loved although real are deceptive. Carlson did not report that the average Russian salary is slightly less than $15,000 per year or $288 per week. In contrast the average USA salary is $52,000 per year or $1,000 per week. That shopping buggy (cart) full of groceries that Carlson raved about and said cost the equivalent of $104. He didn’t mention that would be 36% of the average Russian’s salary. The average American is reported to spend $270 per week at the grocery store. That is 27% of the average American’s salary. It does not take a math expert to know that 27% is a lot less than 36%.
On top of that, hundreds of Russians were recently arrested and jailed just for having the audacity to lay a flower in mourning to Navalny.
If Tucker Carlson likes Russia so much, maybe he should have just stayed there.
Sherry says
Remember ole Tucker was fired from FOX, right after the massive Dominion settlement, for passionately spreading lies regarding (UNPROVEN) fraud about our last Presidential election.
Douglas says
Keir Simmons, Charlie Rose, Megyn Kelly, Bloomberg, Oliver Stone (for over 2 years creating a 4 hour miniseries), George Stephanopoulos, Barbra Walters have all interviewed Putin. I am truly not understanding the difference. It seems to be selective.