Medial debate on the interpretation of history in Tucker Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin
Medial debate on the interpretation of history in Tucker Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin

Summary/Abstract: RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: The article analyses the historical segment of the Carlson–Putin interview as a narrative device and examines media reactions to the use of the past to justify Russia’s contemporary political actions. RESEARCH PROBLEM AND METHODS: The central problem concerns how Vladimir Putin’s historical narrative functions in the media sphere and how the journalist’s lack of critical scrutiny affects its reception in public debate. The study uses qualitative content analysis with a comparative element, examining the interview itself, media reactions in Poland and Western countries, and selected commentaries by historians and analysts. The article lies at the intersection of media communication studies, contemporary history, and political discourse analysis. PROCESS OF ARGUMENTATION: The argument follows a problem-oriented structure. Putin’s historical narrative is reconstructed chronologically, with attention to its key components and interpretive strategies. RESEARCH RESULTS: The analysis shows that the historical part of the interview is neither a digression nor an obstruction tactic, but a coherent, teleological narrative designed to legitimise the Russian Federation’s current political actions. It is based on selective events, linear ordering, and meanings aligned with Russian raison d’état. Carlson’s limited intervention and lack of substantive corrections to simplifications and chronological errors positioned him as a narrative intermediary rather than a critical moderator, shaping the interview’s course and reception. CONCLUSIONS, INNOVATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The study finds that Carlson does not differ substantially from his mainstream media critics, who also lack historical expertise. Media debate largely runs parallel to, rather than within, the historical narrative presented by Putin. Given the availability of sources, journalists conducting politically sensitive interviews and commentators engaging in related polemics should be substantively prepared and consult professional historians, as insufficient preparation reinforces one-sided messaging even when it is widely criticised.

• Details
• Contents