If You Start Your Own Show, Don't Do the First Episode With the Head of a Terror Group
This still seems like a tactless move that did not age well:
This show lasted only 12 episodes, it was licensed for broadcasting mainly/only by the Kremlin (RT), perhaps because Quick Roll Productions/Dartmouth Films could not find other high-profile parties interested in the show, whose last guest was Anwar Ibrahim.
I raised the issue 5 years later with Julian Assange in Twitter (his account has changed names since):
There's this growing (and seemingly widespread) concern that people who describe themselves as "left" are conflating that with sympathisers of terror.
When RT and other Russian channels invited me to be on their shows I not only declined; I never ever responded.
What could Wikileaks possibly accomplish by giving a platform to Nasrallah? Or taking money from Roger Waters? This seems to have completely changed the focus of Wikileaks. It almost never mentions Russia's war in Ukraine. It killed, injured and maimed over a million people.
It has been years since Wikileaks published any new leaks (and 3 months since Julian Assange's release); its political commentary (in Musk's and KSA's "X") mostly sucks. The site of Wikileaks seems somewhat neglected in favour of social control media. All the latest 7 "X" posts from Wikileaks are pro-Nasrallah. When Assange ran the site it wasn't like this, they at least tried to seem balanced. Is Roger running things now? Were strings attached to this money of his (plane bill) and will Wikileaks become a prop of this man? Wikileaks fails to recognise that terror groups also take lives away. That is a serious miscalculation and it can become a liability even to Wikileaks supporters, including those who stubbornly denied Wikileaks having links to Russia. It almost feels like Wikileaks has deliberately helped Russia distract from what it does to Ukraine by misdirecting outrage in Saudi-owned platforms. █