President Biden addresses the nation, Colorado argues before the Supreme Court, John Avlon exits CNN, celebrities set to dominate Super Bowl ads, Piers Morgan abandons linear TV, CBS News digital staffers unionize, Disney's stock climbs 12%, Google renames Bard, "Dune" eyes $65 million opening weekend, and more. But first, the A1.

Putin and His Poodle

CNN Photo Illustration/Tucker Carlson Network

It's evident why Vladimir Putin granted an interview to Tucker Carlson. 

Over the course of the more than two-hour sit-down, the former Fox News host turned online commentator largely refrained from challenging the Russian authoritarian, whose brutal war on Ukraine has led to the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Those expecting a hard-hitting face-off will have surely walked away sorely disappointed by the long-winded and rambling interview, in which Tucker himself at times appeared lost.

Instead of pressing Putin on the many topics at hand, including credible accusations Russia has committed war crimes and the imprisonment of opposition leader Alexei Navalny, Carlson allowed the autocrat a free lane to manipulate the public and tell his version of history, no matter how deceptive it may have been. At times, between the airing of grievances, Putin appeared to school Carlson on historical events as the host looked on in bewilderment. Or to put it more plainly, Carlson provided Putin a platform to spread his propaganda to a global audience with little to any scrutiny of his claims.

"What you see from watching the first 45 minutes of this, is that this is President Putin's platform," Clarissa Ward, CNN's chief international correspondent, remarked, adding that it was "clear from the very beginning" of the interview that Carlson did "not have control."

In some cases, Carlson even fed into Putin's narratives. For instance, Putin advanced an absurd deep state-style conspiracy theory that the U.S. government is not controlled by its elected leaders, but by unelected powers at the Central Intelligence Agency who direct the president like a puppet from the shadows.

"So, twice you've described U.S. presidents making decisions and then being undercut by their agency heads," Carlson said after Putin made the assertion, earnestly summing up the Russian leader's mendacious narrative. "So it sounds like you're describing a system that's not run by the people who are elected, in your telling?"

"That's right, that's right," Putin replied.

Carlson never followed up to challenge the absurdity. 

It was a massive propaganda victory for Putin, who can — and will – now twist the encounter for his own ends. If there was any doubt that Putin did not view the sit-down with Carlson as a big win, a glance at how his own state-run media covered the affair should erase it. Immediately after Carlson published the chat online, Putin's mouthpieces rushed to amplify it. 

TASS featured the sit-down as the top story on its homepage, amplifying Putin's claim that Ukraine is an "artificial state" and devoting an entire section of its website to special coverage of the interview. RT, the English-language broadcaster now exiled from much of the Western world, aired significant swaths of the interview on its air.

"VLADIMIR PUTIN'S INTERVIEW GAINS OVER 20 MILLION VIEWERS IN FIRST TWO HOURS," RT boasted in one on-screen graphic.

None of this should come as any surprise.

While Carlson was once a critic of the Russian government, in recent years he has been far more sympathetic to the Putin-led state, dragging the GOP with him. Carlson's commentary on Russia's brutal war on Ukraine has been anything but favorable toward Kiev, with the right-wing extremist even likening Volodymyr Zelensky to vermin last year. 

Which is precisely why Putin agreed to the interview with Carlson, while actual journalists who would have pressed the Russian leader on a range of critical issues, have been denied access for years. You don't have to take our word for it, either. Putin's own spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, told reporters this week that Carlson was selected because he "has a position that is different from the rest" of Western media.

There was one moment, however, in which Carlson did gently press Putin. At the end of the interview, Carlson asked Putin if he would be "willing to release" Evan Gershkovich, the imprisoned reporter for The Wall Street Journal. Putin declined to release Gershkovich now, to which Carlson said, "He's a kid, and maybe he was breaking your law in some way, but he's not a super spy and everybody knows that."

While Carlson did advocate for the immediate release of Gershkovich, his remark did not go over well at The WSJ. Ted Mann, a reporter for The WSJ, wrote on X that it was "disgraceful of Carlson to suggest Evan was 'breaking [their] law.'"

"He wasn’t," Mann added. "Carlson knows that. Evan is a law-abiding, decent reporter being held hostage for geopolitical leverage. He should be released immediately."

The WSJ also released a statement following the interview. 

"Evan is a journalist, and journalism is not a crime. Any portrayal to the contrary is total fiction," the newspaper said. "Evan was unjustly arrested and has been wrongfully detained by Russia for nearly a year for doing his job, and we continue to demand his immediate release."

CNN Photo Illustration

A Supreme Showdown: Days before the Super Bowl airs on CBS, news organizations had a super bowl event of their own Thursday. The Supreme Court heard the high-stakes case to determine if Donald Trump is disqualified from holding office again after he incited the January 6 insurrection. Cable news networks and major newspapers carried an audio feed of the historic hearing live to their audiences. While there were no cameras in the court, the audio feed offered the public an incredible look at one of the most consequential cases to make its way to the high court. As Brian Stelter posted on Threads, "Television cameras would be ideal, but let's take a moment to appreciate that the Supreme Court does provide live audio of oral arguments on days like today. A big transparent step forward."

CNN Photo Illustration/Ezra Shaw/Getty Images

Star-Studded Bowl: Get ready to see some familiar faces during the Super Bowl commercials this year. "Brands are testing the limits of how many celebrities can be squeezed into a single Super Bowl ad break," The WSJ's Suzanne Vranica and Nate Rattner reported Thursday, citing data from iSpot.tv. That data, the duo reported, indicated that nearly half the ads shown last year featured multiple celebrities. "This year is expected to be no different," they wrote. Read their full story here. 

Fox News/CNN Photo Illustration

Memory Mayhem: What was supposed to be a good news day for Joe Biden ended on a painful note. The positive news, of course, was that Biden will not be charged by special counsel Robert Hur over his handling of classified information. The bad news was that, in his report, Hur raised questions about the 81-year-old president's mental acuity, writing, "We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory." In another part of the report, Hur wrote, "Mr. Biden’s memory also appeared to have significant limitations." 

Suffice to say that the special counsel's words provided a burst of wind into the sails that Biden's age is catching up to him. The narrative so drenched the public discourse on Thursday that the White House abruptly announced in the evening that Biden would address the nation. Biden showed vigor while talking to the country and fielding questions from the unsparing group of journalists assembled, but also shot himself in the foot when he referred to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi as the president of Mexico. 😳

To be fair, everyone does mix up names, as the White House has repeatedly pointed out. In fact, after mocking Biden's "diminished faculties" on Thursday night, Fox News host Jesse Watters (only 45!) referred to South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem as the "South Carolina governor." Oops! Regardless, the special counsel's words have unquestionably hurt Biden politically, at least for now. In right-wing media, the special counsel's remarks are unsurprisingly front and center. But Hur's report has also pushed the swelling narrative around the president's mental fitness out of that particular universe, where it has already received much attention, and into the mainstream. Headlines about Biden's memory sat atop homepage of The NYT, The WaPo, The WSJ, CNN, and other news leaders Thursday night.

CNN Photo Illustration/Beata Zawrzel/NurPhoto/Getty Images

Bye Bye, Bard: We barely knew you, Bard! Google announced Thursday that its A.I. bot will be renamed Gemini. "Bard has been the best way for people to directly experience our most capable models," Google boss Sundar Pichai wrote in a blog post. "To reflect the advanced tech at its core, Bard will now simply be called Gemini." Pichai also announced that users can start using Gemini Advanced, which he described as "state of the art" technology, by subscribing to to a Google One A.I. Premium plan, which costs $20 a month after the trial period ends. The Verge's David Pierce has more.

🔎 Zooming in: Pichai might describe Gemini Advanced as "state of the art," but when I tried it on Thursday it was anything but. Not only was the interface exceedingly slow, it also spit out less-than-ideal results. For example, I asked it to plan me a weekend trip for my wife and I outside New York City. It recommended Hoboken, New Jersey, saying it would be a "great option" for a "romantic weekend trip." That's questionable advice, to say the least (perhaps Gemini needs to get out more!). Google seems to be aware that Gemini's answers cannot be fully trusted yet. Directly beneath the text field in which users enter prompts, Google warns, "Gemini may display inaccurate info, including about people, so double-check its responses."

CNN Photo Illustration/Warner Bros./Everett Collection

Here Comes the Sandworm: The epic second "Dune" film is looking to make big noise at the box office, according to tracking released Tuesday — and as Deadline's Anthony D'Alessandro wrote, "Everyone is going nuts with projections as it’s been a barren marketplace." The Legendary/Warner Bros. Pictures sci-fi action flick is eying an opening weekend of at least $65 million. As D'Alessandro points out, that's much higher than the first film's debut of $41 million back in 2021 (albeit, the world was still dealing with the pandemic back then). More from D'Alessandro here.

► Box Office Pro chief analyst Shawn Robbins told me that his projection is in a window of $55 to 75 million with the "potential to go higher." Robbins added that he's "leaning toward the high-ish end for now."