Tucker Carlson’s Armenia Episode Sparks Outrage Over Hidden Agendas
Tucker Carlson's latest episode on Armenia sparked controversy, with critics questioning his motives and those of his guest, Harut Sassounian. The episode, which discussed Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's attacks on the Armenian Church, has raised eyebrows due to the participants' backgrounds and Carlson's own history of taking payments for favorable coverage.
Carlson interviewed Sassounian, a well-known Armenian-American activist, in his latest exhibition on Armenia. There's no evidence to suggest Sassounian was paid for the interview. However, the episode has been criticized for its timing and content. Carlson and his legal representative, Robert Amsterdam, have both received payments from questionable sources in the past. Amsterdam has taken money from the Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, while Carlson has previously been paid by Qatar for favorable coverage.
The episode featured Narek Kareptyan, the nephew of jailed Russian-Armenian tycoon Samvel Karapetyan, and his lawyer Robert Amsterdam. Azerbaijani media outlet Caliber deemed the interview an example of 'hybrid warfare', suggesting it aimed to disrupt the peace process between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Carlson's claims about Israel's role in the conflict have also been called into question. He equated Israel's sale of military hardware to Azerbaijan with 'Israelis killing Christians with US tax dollars', despite unverified claims of Israeli drone operators' involvement.
The truthfulness of allegations regarding Samvel Karapetyan and the church remains unclear. However, the episode's aim to demonize Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, portray Karapetyan as an innocent victim, and reframe the ongoing dispute between Pashinyan and the Armenian Apostolic Church for American conservatives has been widely criticized.
The Tucker Carlson episode on Armenia has been met with skepticism due to the participants' track records and the episode's apparent agenda. While the truthfulness of the allegations remains uncertain, the episode's content and the participants' backgrounds have raised questions about its impartiality and motives.
