As I write this, I haven't seen Tucker Carlson's interview with Vladimir Putin. In fact, it has yet to be published as of yet (it may be before this is published).

Yet what I have seen is an awful lot of criticism of Carlson's willingness to give a platform to Putin, and more than one person has accused Carlson of aiding and abetting the enemy and of being a Putin apologist. 

Personally, my opinions on the war in Ukraine are more complicated than Carlson's, and I often disagree with him on this and other issues.

But I also think the accusations against Carlson are absurd, and especially believe that any criticism aimed at him for taking the opportunity to grab an interview with Putin are ridiculous. 

Why I'm interviewing Vladimir Putin. pic.twitter.com/hqvXUZqvHX

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) February 6, 2024

Reporters--back when they actually did journalism--never used to shy away from interviewing controversial figures and even avowed enemies of the United States or our allies. In fact, the US is no less and no more involved in Israel's war with Hamas and nobody blinks when we see inflammatory reporting and interviews with actual terrorists. 

So what is so special about Vladimir Putin, aside from his being turned into the archetypical villain in a James Bond movie? Reporters have interviewed Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Joseph Stalin, and a host of evil men and we called it journalism. 

Now, though, journalism as a profession is a shell of its former self. Journalists don't bother to do their own digging anymore--at least in the MSM. They simply take the equivalent of regime press releases and mouth the words that are piped into their ears. 

It is insane. 

I happen to believe that Putin is an evil, old-KGB-style apparat whose opinion I value even less than Joe Biden's. But I also want to hear what he has to say and judge for myself, not just read and hear regime-approved narratives. 

In the old days every journalist would not only agree with that sentiment, but they would likely have given their left arm to have the opportunity to be in Carlson's place across the table from Putin. 

And that is as it should be. As much as Putin is a self-interested liar, I have grown to think that many of our own leaders are in the same category on that score. 

That isn't a statement of moral equivalence--I am fiercely loyal to the United States and Western values, and as bad as our leaders often are, they also are serving a far better regime than Russia will ever be. 

I trust none of them these days. I have been lied to so many times and have seen behind the curtain, and don't like what I see. So I, like most Americans, want to see as many different points of view as possible and hear from as many as possible. 

Tucker Carlson is right: we are being lied to, constantly, and deserve to know the truth. Does that mean that I will learn something new and startling from Putin that will make me sympathize with his point of view?

Almost certainly not. I think he is scummy. I thought so when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were sidling up to him, and still think so today. 

But we all deserve to hear from him, and from everybody. I know that my writing about the Israel-Hamas war has benefited greatly from hearing from Hamas' leaders. They confirmed what scum they are, and confirmed to me that the protesters supporting them are as well. 

So I applaud Tucker Carlson for braving the slings and arrows and sitting down with Putin. If the media don't like Carlson's take, then they should interview Putin themselves. 

None of them has. That is shameful in itself.