Cucker Carlson has done an "interview" with the president of Iran. Zero critical questions, zero follow-up on blatant lies. Putin loaned out his pet to Iran for the weekend.
Carlson had made a statement prior to the interview being aired, talking about the issues there were.
Issues such as the interview being done live and the president of Iran not speaking English; therefore having both Carlson's and the president's words translated. When doing live translation, nuances tend to be lost, and then the accuracy of the translation depends on the skills of the translator and also his good faith. If the translator knows both persons can't understand one another without a third party's help, nothing stops the translator to basically say whatever he wants.
It also makes follow-up questions either hard or impossible to ask, and answer, because there is no "organic fluidity". It isn't a dialogue.
You can compare it with the interview Carlson had with Ted Cruze. You can jab, you can use idioms, you can make reference, you can use the entire book of social and cultural references; and just like you can use them, you will also be able to recognize and understand them.
Not so much when you have in front of you someone who doesn't evolve with the same linguistic references.
Another issue is trying to get as much out without antagonizing the interlocutor. Trick and controversial questions are to be avoided. You don't want your interview to be cut short.
So, could it have been better? Yes, but not by much.
Did Carlson come out in a good way? Heh... not especially, but I doubt it could have been better.
Pezeshkian? Who knows, really. Were the questions asked by Carlson correctly translated? Were Pezeshkian's answers correctly translated? Only those who speak Persian can say. And then there is the question of Pezeshkian's honesty.
So... yeah...
