←back to thread

Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

(www.washingtonpost.com)
923 points coloneltcb | 4 comments | 25 Apr 25 23:03 UTC | HN request time: 0.849s | source
Show context
tzs ◴[26 Apr 25 00:00 UTC] No.43799641[source]▶
> Before being named U.S. attorney, Martin appeared on Russia-backed media networks more than 150 times, The Washington Post reported last week. In one appearance on RT in 2022, he said there was no evidence of military buildup on Ukraine’s boarders only nine days before Russia invaded the country. He further criticized U.S. officials as warmongering and ignoring Russia security concerns.

This is getting ridiculous. Is there anyone associated with this administration who does not have a record of promoting Russia's positions?

replies(5): >>43799655 #>>43799885 #>>43800099 #>>43800704 #>>43801144 #
NelsonMinar ◴[26 Apr 25 01:25 UTC] No.43800099[source]▶
Martin was also at the coup attempt on Jan 6 and on that day said "Like Mardi Gras in DC today: love, faith and joy. Ignore #FakeNews". https://archive.ph/jekzQ
replies(1): >>43800455 #
kristopolous[dead post] ◴[26 Apr 25 02:43 UTC] No.43800455[source]▶
[flagged]
asveikau ◴[26 Apr 25 05:43 UTC] No.43801216[source]▶
> Amy Goodman

Source for that? My impression is that Democracy Now!, while it has a clear perspective and set of biases, has been fairly independent. I don't think Goodman herself would be involved with them, but I think some of her sometimes guests have been.

In general I agree with folks replying to you that RT is not trustworthy and someone being involved with it is a red flag.

replies(1): >>43801605 #
1. kristopolous ◴[26 Apr 25 07:26 UTC] No.43801605[source]▶
Here's two: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x61wly8 or https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xvxx8j

Chris Hedges had a show as well.

replies(1): >>43801686 #
2. asveikau ◴[26 Apr 25 07:48 UTC] No.43801686[source]▶
Thanks for the first two. So she was a guest on panelist/talking head shows about her antiwar positions.

I know about Chris Hedges. I wasn't asking about him.

replies(1): >>43807073 #
3. kristopolous ◴[26 Apr 25 20:48 UTC] No.43807073[source]▶
Mostly I'm sensitive to the classic technique of scapegoating an external enemy as the source of failure for a poorly done internal policy.

Whether it's Jews, Russians, Communists, leftists, the Chinese, immigrants, it's always some infiltrating evildoer and not the failure of policy.

It's purely ideologically driven because these accusers think their thing being sabotaged, whether it's an economic policy, a candidate, whatever, is so obviously superior that only some secretive cackling outsider could be to blame for the disparity of the results

Whether it's Clinton in 2016 or Trump in 2020 there's an elaborate conspiracy to explain it. Any excuse to avoid introspection.

If I am anything in life I am anti-bullshit. Nothing can move productively forward when based on nonsense.

So that's really the larger context here.

Being part of Jan 6 is a signal, being a repeated guest on an ideological show like Nick Fuentes, Russ Roberts, or Richard Wolff, these are signals.

Appearing on Rt? Not so much

replies(1): >>43809442 #
4. asveikau ◴[27 Apr 25 04:31 UTC] No.43809442{3}[source]▶
I think this is a naive position that likely comes from lack of exposure to Russian propaganda. It doesn't take much to discover that RT is illegitimate.

I think people who haven't figured this out do get sucked into it without realizing what they are.

It's similar to Fox News, but I would say worse.