Putin interview with Charlie Rose

[marksjax]

This is a link to the unedited version that had to be shortened for 60 Minutes. I saw the Charlie Rose interview in it's entirety  on PBS last night that this is the transcript of.
Putin comes off as very intelligent, articulate and resolute in his beliefs. He's a serious person.
It has been so long since we heard from him I thought I would share this.
Quite eye opening to me anyway.


http://www.sott.net/article/302911-Sott-Exclusive-Full-unedited-text-of-Vladimir-Putins-interview-with-Charlie-Rose-What-CBS-left-out

[Ajax]

Thanks for posting this.  I watched the edited version on 60 Minutes and was embarrassed for Rose - I've never really cared for him but he wasn't up to the task of interviewing Putin.  Then watching Scott Pelley interview Trump immediately after the Rose-Putin interview made Rose look like even more of a lightweight. 

[marksjax]

I agree Charlie may not have been at his best.
In Charlie's defense I'm gonna give him a pass as he had to travel to Russia for the piece and he looked kinda worn out. Plus who knows what other kind of requirements they had. Putin was in his own home and was ready obviously.
And the delay with the interpreter cannot have made it easy.
Putin looks to be a tough interview. Having said that he came across as an articulate leader who knows all the tricks and both sides of the propaganda war we still wage against him. I wouldn't want to get him mad though, lol.

Wish our leaders weren't so hesitant to talk more in depth with these other leaders.
The world might be a safer place as a result.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Thanks for posting that.

I didn't see the interview, but will plan on finding that tonight.

I did read through the entire interview and can only shake my head at some of the comments regarding the editing.  I'll have a better understanding after watching what aired, but on the surface it seems that there's no hope for actual journalism.

I can understand editing out full question / comment for either time or substance, but editing individual segments as part of an overall statement should not be allowed.  Context and meaning are changed on purpose, and that IMO is complete bullshit and why I have a hard time believing much at face-value as it is.

[simms3]

Putin looks to be a tough interview. Having said that he came across as an articulate leader who knows all the tricks and both sides of the propaganda war we still wage against him.

Propaganda war *we* wage against HIM?

As a gay man I just can't let this slide.  And beyond the gay front I just can't let that comment slide.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Agree or disagree with the content, but shouldn't it be free from contextual editing?

Eliminating questions / answers in their entirety?  Sure. 

Omitting singular statements from on overall response to alter the meaning?  Bad taste. 

My biggest take from the article is the shameful way that 'news' organizations are anything but. 

[simms3]

Even beyond the gay front, though.  Have you guys ever talked to Russians, frequently?  I just went on a trip where I shared an RV with a guy who had a Russian girlfriend and a Ukrainian girlfriend.  While the two girlfriends were amicable and friends, especially since they shared a man, there was a moment when the girl from Russia called Ukraine part of Russia, and they just went into it.

Russians are brutal.  Of all the people I have the most skirmishes with, it's the Russians.  They can either be awesome, and props for the gay community over there especially for dealing with straight up persecution and risking their lives and livelihoods and remaining gay and jovial as we all should, but the Russians can also be just the most difficult, cold, brutal people on this planet, and that side even comes out a lot here in the US with Russian immigrants.  I live not too far from a Russian community.  I see this...

Putin is a *huge* and clear/obvious source for an incredibly strong nationalist focus/mentality in that country.  The amount of general propaganda reported on by western media that goes on in that country, not just the gay stuff, but lots of stuff, isn't US propagandizing them, it's us reporting what actually goes on over there!

I really thought all of this was obvious and widely known...

[marksjax]

Just to clarify my thought process as regards the mention of our propoganda against Putin and Russia:
I was meaning the propaganda (from both sides) that has been going on since the Cold War. My specific meaning was military power.
I was not making a general statement that the human rights violations were part of the propaganda.
If you read the article you can see where certain parts have been edited out of the 60 minutes piece. That is propaganda on our part.
That is the context I was referring to.

[simms3]

^^^I don't know if it's propaganda, per se.  I have not read the article or watched the interview, so I couldn't tell you if in my opinion the "pro-Putin" stuff was edited out or the "pro-whatever else", but what I can tell you is that I scrolled through the link/unedited interview transcript and it is really long.  Clearly with commercial breaks they cannot put that into a single 60 Minutes.  What I also note is that people in general seem displeased at the way Charlie Rose interviewed Putin, giving him a bunch of "softies" etc.

Propaganda has to be more blatant than that.  The US was probably more guilty of using propaganda during WWII than Russia is today, but the whole world during the 1930s/1940s was a propaganda machine that we probably cannot comprehend today.

[marksjax]

I would agree that perhaps it is not propaganda in that PBS did show the interview in its entirity.
I would argue that 60 Minutes should have shown the whole hour interview instead of just a segment.
Charlie hit him hard on a lot of subjects including the treatment of gays as well as other subjects.
I felt it was propaganda that the picture that was painted was not the entire picture. That is my only point.
To have the leader of your enemy give his first interview in ten years or so is the news item you run with.

[Adam White]

Putin looks to be a tough interview. Having said that he came across as an articulate leader who knows all the tricks and both sides of the propaganda war we still wage against him.

Propaganda war *we* wage against HIM?

As a gay man I just can't let this slide.  And beyond the gay front I just can't let that comment slide.

The US and its allies DO wage a propaganda war against Putin and Russia - much like the Russia does against the US.

That doesn't mean he's a saint. It's just the way it is.

[spuwho]

its not.  The religious and 'conservative' bias of the southern establishment generally decides that this stuff isn't worth covering, so it isn't. Its one of the reasons that people who live in the south often really don't know why things are happening in the world.  Obviously there are people passionate about finding out, and thank god for the internet, because now thats possible.

But its a long standing truism.

Locally it used to be much worse.  The bookstores would simply refuse to distribute magazines and publications that they deemed bad.  Like Interview! Magazine and any number of foreign policy and liberal publications.

Its better now, but this issue simply hasn't been covered in anyones editorial pages.

Too busy feeling sorry for poor kim davis and her religious freedoms being crushed.

So do we prefer the press "run up of evil" that was done to Saddam?

Or should we see reruns of Putin touring Bush's ranch in Texas driving Dubya's F-250?

Lets face it, Putin feels like a sap because he got burned on Georgia and on Ukraine, so he has decided to go his own way.

Not saying the guy is right, but who can blame him? He got tired of mealy mouthed EU leaders saying one thing, but doing something else.

So he is handling it in a very Soviet way. Show your strengths. Force the adversary aside.

Maybe Elton John can convince him on his social issues. John Kerry sure cant on anything else.