Talk:Sputnik (news agency)

Disappointed
The article and the talk page agree that this is a propaganda agency, but there are no pointers to any media organisation that is a source of information rather than propaganda. I came here vaguely hoping for one or two pointers as to whether the propaganda is serving Russia or the Empire. This is often obscure, as the Empire has so many thousands of outlets pretending to be enemies, such as the hundreds (including, sadly, this one) that promote fantasies about 9/11 to dilute the effect of the handful of informative sources. I find an article promoting the notion that Sputnik serves Russia, talk saying this is biased, and absolutely no enlightenment. All this inclines me towards my conjecture that Sputnik belongs to those Russians who are in the employ of either the Empire or of the powerful fifth column in Russia that sees its business/crime interests better served by the Empire than by an independent Russia.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * How do you say crocodile tears in Russian? Sputnik International IS the mouthpiece of the Russian regime. That's not hyperbole; that's a verifiable fact, and the article contains plenty of information that substantiates that fact. Anyone who doesn't see that is blind.Lucas Donald Velour (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * BBC is the mouthpiece of British imperialism. Crocodile tears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4E:249D:B700:3B60:3141:72D8:A6EB (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see the reliable sources, including high-quality academic sources, cited at Special:Permalink/1077563929 that support the propaganda descriptor for Sputnik. —  Newslinger  talk   06:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment on the nature of Alexander Mercouris' activities
The section 'European coverage and responses' of the article contains claims on the nature of Alexander Mercouris' work, which ought to be discussed:

"Alexander Mercouris, a British barrister debarred for falsely claiming to have been kidnapped and for attempting bribery, was described in Sputnik coverage as a 'London-based expert on international affairs'".

The YouTube channel of Alexander Mercouris focuses on Ukraine in an international context. Living in an environment where false information on international affairs appears in our media on a daily basis, it is very difficult to create a good understanding of the conflict in Ukraine. I see no better way of creating a solid worldview than trying to listen to journalistic and expert views of all sides. My experience would indicate that by checking Alexander Mercouris' YouTube channel and other alternative western sources I get a much better view on world politics than through local media. Many of my sources base some of their information on Russian material. Everyone can make judgement on reliability of such information, and so does Alexander Mercouris.

The presentation style of this British YouTuber suggests that the presenter is exceptionally skilled in analytical methods and source critique. Without knowing much about the background of Mercouris, one wouldn't be surprised if he would indeed be a barrister. He has also stated a number of times that he is based in London. Mercouris’ understanding in international affairs shows enough depth for me to infer that as a journalist he has enough knowledge to comment competently on international politics and trading patterns. Being qualified to be called an expert is of course something, which would deserve a much deeper understanding of economical matters than the one that Mercouris has.

The assertion that Mercouris would have been falsely claiming kidnapping and having attempted bribery deserves careful attention, as it udermines his credibility as a journalist. The article’s footnote [76] states that the information is based on an article in "The Times. London. Retrieved 26 February 2020. (subscription required)". As the proof of the unpleasant assertion is hidden behind a commercially conditioned source, this makes it very hard to verify the grounds and authenticity of these claims.

Collaboratively created Wikipedia content can also be of help in checking facts. I would be of the opinion that the above statements on the Wikipedia forum, tend to discredit Mercouris’ work on grounds which has to do with him as a person. Such a claim has wider implications: I have observed a pattern whereby noteworthy leftist journalist and dissident experts are linked to allegations of many kinds of personal misconduct; here false claims of kidnapping and bribery, elsewhere of rape, pedofilia and terrorism.

Instead of throwing light on the subject matter, the passage raises doubt on the article. Therefore, I’m of the opinion that the passage should be removed. Mercouris has a daily audience of more than 100 000 spectators, which makes him an object of public interest. Rather than becoming a propaganda tool, Wikipedia should dedicate an article on Alexander Mercouris, where the merit and dismerit of claims about the ethical backgrounds of his work could be properly discussed. Pdonner (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * There are so far no replies to my suggestion of removing the passage on Mercouris in the article on the Sputnik news agency. It seems to be partly irrelevant to the topic of the article and moreover a badly argumented attack on a person who is doing significant contributions in clarifying and commenting information on the ukranian conflict. - Are we ready to remove the sentence and the related footnote? Pdonner (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)