In December 1931, journalist Dorothy Thompson entered the Kaiserhof Hotel in Berlin to interview Adolf Hitler. Though initially considering him the “future dictator of Germany,” a mere minute with Hitler revealed to Thompson his inconsequence, volatility, and insecurity. Her experience, recounted in her book “I Saw Hitler!,” reflects a journalist’s commitment to engaging with figures even when diametrically opposed to their ideas. This context is pertinent amid the controversy surrounding Tucker Carlson’s interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Criticism arose over Carlson’s interview, with figures like Adam Kinzinger branding him a traitor and Bill Kristol suggesting a shutdown of Carlson’s re-entry into the United States. Such sentiments betray a misunderstanding of journalism’s role, often bound by the principles of liberalism and the First Amendment. While Carlson may not fit the traditional mold of journalists like Walter Cronkite, he deserves the same protections as any practitioner of the profession.
Journalists like Nate Thayer, who interviewed Pol Pot, or Barbara Walters, who interviewed Bashar Assad, have engaged with dictators and tyrants throughout history. This extends to Dan Rather’s interview with Saddam Hussein. While opinions may differ on the impact or merit of such interviews, the underlying principle is that journalists, regardless of personal views, have the right to conduct them without fear of punishment or censorship.
Threats to sanction or expel journalists for their work should be condemned, as they mirror tactics used by tyrants themselves. Thomas Jefferson’s emphasis on the freedom of the press is foundational to American democracy. Even in the face of criticism, journalists like Thompson and Carlson, who engage with controversial figures, contribute to the democratic ethos, shedding light on complex conflicts and fostering debate. It is essential to uphold the principles of free speech and press freedom, even when confronting despotic regimes or unsavory characters.