Unlike Hearst, Carlson does not think that his job is to talk to world leaders away from the cameras in order to decide what’s best for democracy. He wants to interview Putin because that would be a scoop in and of itself — and since we have no shortage of pundits calling Putin Hitler, he’s interested in how the Russian leader thinks. He’s curious about the truth, in other words, which is what journalism is meant to be about, even if that makes him anathema to most important people.

Ah, say Carlson’s critics, but he’s a “Russia sympathizer” who will slobber all over Putin. Well, let’s wait and see on that. No doubt, unless Carlson calls Putin a murderer to his face and storms out of the interview in disgust, he will be widely branded as a “useful idiot.”

But that’s another point on which traditional journalism has become unhealthily detached from its purpose. Broadcast journalists, in particular, believe they must “push back” — which today means reacting negatively and emotionally — when dealing with controversial politicians, else they will be vilified for being soft or sycophantic. Interviewers feel unless they have skewered their subject they have somehow failed. Declining to challenge someone is seen as an endorsement.

That’s idiotic, of course, and makes news journalism ever more tedious — as pompous presenters insist on talking over their subjects and making themselves the center of attention.