←back to thread

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

(www.washingtonpost.com)
851 points coloneltcb | 3 comments | 25 Apr 25 23:03 UTC | HN request time: 0.654s | 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]
NelsonMinar ◴[26 Apr 25 02:52 UTC] No.43800483[source]▶
RT is not legit. It is Russian propaganda. When those people participated they were collaborators.
replies(4): >>43800564 #>>43800566 #>>43801307 #>>43801584 #
roenxi ◴[26 Apr 25 06:02 UTC] No.43801307[source]▶
Ex-CIA head Brennan famously remarked in an MSNBC interview [0] that when he says something is a Russian information operation that includes dumping accurate information.

So really it isn't enough to identify something as Russian propaganda - it is necessary to analyse whether it is propaganda of the accurate and informative variety, or the inaccurate variety.

Propaganda really just means someone is arguing a viewpoint. The BBC is classic propaganda, but nonetheless a pretty reliable source of information and a lot of the views are very agreeable.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8Shx2AR_E4

replies(2): >>43801429 #>>43802236 #
foldr ◴[26 Apr 25 09:55 UTC] No.43802236[source]▶
The BBC isn’t propaganda. It has its biases for sure, but it doesn’t exist for the purpose of spreading a particular viewpoint. It’s good to be aware of media bias, but it’s reductive and cynical to view all media as propaganda.
replies(2): >>43802354 #>>43802559 #
roenxi ◴[26 Apr 25 11:04 UTC] No.43802559[source]▶
> The BBC isn’t propaganda. It has its biases for sure, but it doesn’t exist for the purpose of spreading a particular viewpoint.

If it isn't pushing a British viewpoint, wouldn't it be incumbent on the British government to shut it down? Why would they be funding something that was pushing viewpoints that undermined Britain? This is simple incentive analysis stuff, this organisation isn't being funded for billions of dollars because the Brits happen to just be uniquely dedicated to the cause of the truth even if it hurts their interests. They're British! They're one step removed from the people who invented espionage, there is a long history of information warfare here.

RT & the BBC are both state backed media organisations. It is quite difficult to come up with a reason for those except propaganda. The US has been running this experiment for centuries now, it has been well established that the government-sponsored perspective isn't any more legitimate than anyone else's.

replies(4): >>43802625 #>>43802825 #>>43803698 #>>43806648 #
1. shakna ◴[26 Apr 25 11:58 UTC] No.43802825[source]▶
The British government has repeatedly tried and failed to shutdown the BBC. They have repeatedly withdrawn funding. MI5 have had agents deployed inside the BBC to try and subvert it.

As of 2017, it runs by royal assent, and there is just about bukpus that the Parliament can do about it. Because at the same time, funding was moved to a trust, to prevent political interference - a trust that both main parties attempted to shutdown, and control, at different times, but were told that they could only operate within the rights granted by the royal charter.

> The BBC shall be independent in all matters concerning the content of its output, the times and manner in which this is supplied, and in the management of its affairs.

Its not a perfect system. But it is very far removed from the daily pressures of propaganda and an angry government. The BBC is not really "state backed". They are independent.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_independence

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Board

replies(1): >>43803341 #
2. roenxi ◴[26 Apr 25 13:16 UTC] No.43803341[source]▶
My eye is drawn to the section:

> The various foreign services of the BBC have always been tied, in some manner, to the national interest. In the 2017 Agreement, that means the Foreign Secretary. Article 33.6 (right) is subject to the Mission and the Public Purposes of the BBC as defined in the Charter, but it supersedes Article 3 (independence).

> Taking account of the strategy and the budget it has set, the BBC will agree with the Foreign Secretary-

> (a) objectives, priorities and targets for the World Service;

> (b) the languages in which the World Service is to be provided

replies(1): >>43803647 #
3. shakna ◴[26 Apr 25 13:55 UTC] No.43803647[source]▶
> (9) In addition to the specific provisions of paragraphs (4) to (8), the relationship between the Foreign Secretary and the BBC for the provision of the World Service is based on the following principles-

> (a) the BBC has full editorial and managerial independence and integrity in the provision of the World Service, within the structure of the Charter and this Framework Agreement;

> (b) in particular, the BBC will decide the most effective and efficient way of delivering the World Service; and

> (c) subject to compliance with the Charter and this Framework Agreement the BBC may generate other sources of income for the World Service.