Glenn Greenwald lauds bravery of RT’s Abby Martin, then NY Times outs her as 9/11 Truther

By Tony Ortega
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Abby Martin (Screenshot)

Let’s follow the bouncing ball on this one as it takes some unpredictable rebounds.

On Friday, PandoDaily’s Mark Ames revealed that Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire funding Glenn Greenwald’s new journalistic effort, First Look, had helped fund efforts to bolster the opposition groups in Ukraine responsible for ousting President Viktor Yanukovych. Ames wondered about Greenwald and documentarian Laura Poitras, two people with access to the full cache of Snowden documents, working for a billionaire who was using his money to affect global politics.

On Saturday, Greenwald fired back, ridiculing Ames for suggesting that Greenwald wouldn’t act completely independently as a journalist, regardless of who was writing his paychecks. In fact, he said, he didn’t even particularly care about Omidyar’s political activities: “Prior to creating The Intercept with Laura Poitras and Jeremy Scahill, I did not research Omidyar’s political views or donations.”

On Monday, PandoDaily’s Paul Carr pointed out that in 2007, Greenwald had a very different attitude about the political ambitions of media owners when he lambasted The Politico because its president and CEO was a longtime Reaganite. Wrote Greenwald then: “There is nothing wrong per se with hard-core political operatives running a news organization. Long-time Republican strategist Roger Ailes oversees Fox News, of course. But it seems rather self-evident that a news organization run by someone with such clear-cut political biases ought to have a hard time holding itself out as some sort of politically unbiased source of news.” (Emphasis ours.)

Then, Tuesday morning, Greenwald seemed to be addressing this squabble when he celebrated RT anchor Abby Martin for her views on Putin’s invasion of Crimea.

For days, RT (formerly Russia Today), had been broadcasting Putin-friendly reports that bordered on outright propaganda. But then on Monday night, Abby Martin, who is based in Washington, went against the prevailing view at RT and announced, “Just because I work here, for RT, doesn’t mean I don’t have editorial independence and I can’t stress enough how strongly I am against any military intervention in sovereign nations’ affairs. What Russia did is wrong.”

Greenwald’s celebration of Martin sounded remarkably like his heated defense of his own independence just a few days earlier: “That that network has a strong pro-Russian bias is unquestionably true. But one of its leading hosts, Abby Martin, remarkably demonstrated last night what ‘journalistic independence’ means by ending her Breaking the Set program with a clear and unapologetic denunciation of the Russian action in Ukraine.”

And now, another strange bounce of this caroming story. The New York Times today, on its blog The Lede, where updates to the Ukraine situation tend to come in small, incremental bites, let loose with a lengthy takedown of Abby Martin, outing her as a longtime 9/11 “Truther.”

“Before she rose to prominence on television, she was an active member of what is known as the 9/11 Truth movement, whose members hold that the official history of the terrorist attacks is a cover for a concealed government conspiracy,” writes Times reporter Robert Mackey.

The piece linked to a 2008 YouTube video of Martin talking about the 9/11 attacks being “an inside job” as she marched in a Santa Monica protest.

For her part, Martin has denied reports that RT is sending her to Crimea for on-location reporting (and for “re-education,” some have joked). And she has blasted back at Mackey on Twitter…


On Twitter Mackey defended the Times piece by saying it gives ‘context’ to Martin’s views about Crimea. The only context we can see is that being a Truther destroys her credibility. And now, we can’t help wondering what Greenwald will say to that (and we have a feeling we won’t have to wait long to find out).

Watch the 2008 video of Abby Martin describing her 9/11 views at a Santa Monica protest…

Russia Today responds: "Contrary to the popular opinion, RT doesn’t beat its journalists into submission, and they are free to express their own opinions, not just in private but on the air. This is the case with Abby’s commentary on the Ukraine.

"We respect her views, and the views of all our journalists, presenters and program hosts, and there will be absolutely no reprimands made against Ms. Martin.

"In her comment Ms. Martin also noted that she does not possess a deep knowledge of reality of the situation in Crimea. As such we’ll be sending her to Crimea to give her an opportunity to make up her own mind from the epicentre of the story."

However, Martin subsequently tweeted that she would not be going to Crimea, despite the statement put out by RT.

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell weighs in on the issue...

Corporate hack: "Abby Martin is an out an out lunatic! She's a 9/11 Truther!" - James Kirchick

The Most Interesting Part of Abby Martin’s Outburst on Russia Today: Its Aftermath

RT Anchor Who Condemned Russian Invasion Is Also a 9/11 Truther

"This Woman is an Out and Out Lunitic...."

"This woman is an out and out lunatic," so says Kirchick of the Daily Beast : "the worst thing you can call someone is crazy, its dismissive." (Dave Chapelle)

Ya just gotta love it how the Western media always points out that its opposite numbers are state sponsored: Soviet State News Agency TASS, State News Agency Xinhua and Kremlin sponsored while never reflexively identifying themselves as the running dog lackeys of the imperialist state that they are.

Will Glenn Respond?

How and if Glenn responds will be quite telling. If he is even slightly sympathetic to Abby's 911 stance, he will certainly be character assassinated by the MSM and band forever from future TV interviews. While part of me hopes he's ready to cross the rubicon, it may be too much to expect. An evasive non-committal maneuver may be his best option. And of course, if he chooses the Rachel Maddow approach, he'll loose all support from the informed side and cast serious doubt about his true journalistic independence.

"How and if Glenn responds will be quite telling"

Don't you know Greenwald's stance on 9/11 Truth? If you don't believe me, ask him and see for yourself.

She's Got Guts

Abby has shown great courage for her exposure on RT -I wouldn't want to be in her shoes today. I hope her shields are up from the heat she will get from all sides. She's one of ours, so please support her for who she is and the work she has done for (her) Media Roots and RT. She's used every tool available to her to get the word out -I wish we had a thousand Abby Martins!

Dear Abby - thank you ∞

Dear Abby.

Thank you an infinity for your courageous stand for truth, justice and the reality of 9/11. Please don't let the supporters and sponsors of international terrorism and war-mongering compromise your journalistic integrity. Stick by your guns - you have taken the side of truth and real journalism and all the world's decent and informed people are on your side. 9/11 Truth is a one way ratchet - once you know the facts, you cannot unlearn them. This is what the evil doers are so afraid of, and this is why we will eventually win.

Sincerely, the Civilized World.

Why does the NY Times get a pass for their 9/11 coverage?

It's so strange how well funded media outfits get a pass for awful journalism and then are magically deemed credible when they hurl accusations at people who dare to question authority.

Paul Craig Roberts on Abby Martin

and Glenn Greenwald ... fine journalists who are far more clear-seeing than most, yet who also occasionally get caught in the propaganda web, unfortunately

"Propaganda Rules the News':

Abby Rules

Only GOOD will come from this. Amen.

"Abby Martin" at 911blogger

The Real Lois Lane

Abby Martin is the real deal. Let the main stream pundit hack class try to knock her down or try to engage her on 9/11. What they'll get is an informed dose of straight talk and style that will collapse their arguments at near free fall speeds.

Smart Girl

Refusing to go to Crimea probably saved her life. Stepping on Putin's toes isn't good for your health (Anna Politkovskaya comes to mind) esp in this case when she's parroting Neocon/NATO propaganda about Russia invading the Crimea.

3 to 1 they would have offed her there, blamed it on the Chechens or some other "terrorists".

Oh right I'm sorry. ABCCNNBCBS and FOX didn't tell me to think that. I'll go back to Wolf Blitzer and Rachel Maddow now for my regular programming

Abby Martin goes on CNN's Piers Morgan Show

Abby Martin joined Piers Morgan Wednesday night after delivering an off-script commentary about Ukraine, and ended up going on several rants about the "corporate media" complex and the self-censorship that exists at American networks "beholden to advertisers."

lol, are you guys serious?

You still believe Glenn Greenwald? Don't you know his stance on 9/11 Truth? Get a grip, 911bloggers. You're being had like a pair of kippers.

And while at it, don't you remember Cass Sunstein and his "plan" for infiltrating, amongst others, the 9/11 Truth movement? This smells
like it from a mile away. Especially if we take into consideration the success of the "ReThink911" campaign as of lately. I am truly
amazed how many Truthers (especially 9/11 ones) out there put their trust in someone like Glenn Greenwald who, if I might add, hasn't
"revealed" anything we didn't know before and who, if I might add, is working for one of the MSM presstitute cess-pools a.k.a The Guardian
WHICH, if I might add that too, never said ANYTHING about 9/11 that didn't toe the OCT line. Am I the only one being sceptical about this
particular matter? I can't be...

Also, worth noting, is the fact that if you do a Google search with terms "Glenn Greenwald" and "9/11 truth", you'll end up with a bunch of
results such as "Greenwald parrots crazy right-wing 9/11 conspiracies" and such. Which, "fine", by itself doesn't have to mean anything.
BUT, having in mind Greenwald's stance on 9/11 Truth in the first place (let me break it to you in case you didn't know: Greenwald thinks
you're all "nuts" just like Jon Stewart or Bill O'Reilley does - interesting fact, innit?) well... you have to admit. Something is rotten in this
particular matter. Am I the only one being sceptical about this? I can't be...

Greenwald and Snowden

Divide and Conquer still works. Whatever one thinks about Greenwald and Snowden -we have to thank them both for shedding light on the beast that fucks with us. Sure, be cynical, question everything, but by all means don't undermine the good work of brave souls such as Greenwald, Snowden, Abby and countless others! Yes, I wish Greenwald , Hedges and Scahill took on our cause, but I 'll give them credit where credit is due. I appreciate that there are independent minds out there. We are winning this folks, don't turn this wine into vinegar.


... it seems kinda naive and, shall we say, a tad strange to praise people who have rejected the thing you know is the most
important thing e.g. 9/11. I mean, and these are just my two humble cents, you'd have to be mighty (and that's a pretty mild term)
naive (and gullible) to trust someone like Snowden OR Greenwald (don't let me start on Jeremy Scashill, pardon me, Scahill),
people who are supposedly "telling you the truth" about the surveillance machine WHICH, if I might add, has almost ALL of it's roots
in (you've maybe guessed it) - 9/11. BUT at the same time (they) either ridicule or ignore questions about 9/11 and/or efforts of
brave 9/11 activists (from around the world) to establish a new investigation (and if not that, just for merely asking questions
that, indeed, need to be answered not ignored, ridiculed or diminished). For someone to blindly trust those people, those same
people who have spent more than a decade (along with MSM, and neo-cons and neo-libs and the myriad of other groups) distorting
the truth about the events of 9/11, diminishing the efforts of brave 9/11 Truthers out there, ridiculing them and harassing them, well...
Call it what you want, but I call it pretty naive (if not dumb, excuse my french). And that by itself wouldn't be so "bad" (to put it again very
mildly) IF we didn't have an (almost) exact scenario in which the main role, instead of Snowden, was played (pretty good, if I might
add - had me fooled for a while) by that shady character named Julian Assange. AND to add insult to injury, I think Glenn Greenwald
played a role in that "scenario" too (if not him, The Guardian most certainly did).

A coincidence? "But of course, my dear Watson. What else could it be?"
Alas, I digress. Have you ever heard of the case of Charlie Veitch?

Anywho, all that being said I'd take someone like e.g. Kevin Ryan over all Snowdens/Assanges/Greenwalds of the world. But that's
just me. And I know I'm not the only one...

Is 911 a monolithic conspiracy?

Everyone changes when exposed to new information. I think future historians will accept your last point about relative importance as unambiguously correct. The NSA revelations are important because they effect the people who avoid the information that motivates us.


... way you look at it, it's silly (IMHO) to expect MSM talkingheads to tell "the truth". In this case especially. I mean, if you want to talk
about "NSA wiretapping" (which has been going on for years, if not decades) without discussing globe-changing events such as
9/11 and 7/7, that's your prerogative. To me it's just silly. That being said, to expect people like Jeremy Scashill, pardon, Scahill
or Glenn Greenwald to shed some light on such matters when they have repeatedly denied the truth about events such as 9/11
or 7/7 is just (excuse my french) plain-vanilla stupid, naive and gullible. In fact, people such as Greenwald haven't even dug into
the matters such as 9/11 or 7/7. In fact, all they did was parrot MSM talking points and toed the OCT line, like true GATEKEEPERS
they, in fact, are. Same goes for individuals such as Matt Taibbi. And that's the whole point: the "media" has lost it's credibility on
the morning of 12/9/2001. And people (who actually think) don't trust them anymore, and why should they? In light of those facts,
these two "scenarios" (Assange and now Snowden) are being played right before our eyes in order to pull the wool over them,
once again, and to make "news media" (and jorunalists) more "credible". And I'm amazed how many people are actually buying
into it. "Sure", it's good that "NSA wiretapping scandal" opened eyes of some people, but c'mon... I think 9/11 Truth Movement
knows, and deserves, better. Because, as I said, wiretapping by government (not just the american) has almost ALL of it's roots
in events such as 9/11 or 7/7. And, I'll repeat once again, you'd have to be either dishonest or mighty naive and gullible to expect
GATEKEEPERS to tell you anything but the opposite of the truth (which they are supposedly looking for or whatnot).


Let's talk about "divide and conquer" strategies:

The first thing a smart disinfo agent does with a person like Abby Martin, (a smart, balsy, independent thinker with the journalistic street cred that carries a ton of influence), is to discredit the shit out of her.

Secondly, if Glenn Greenwald's publically supports the OCT, then he's not exactly in a position to act as a shill. Also, he writes for The Intercept: a privately-funded journalistic venture with a French billionaire. If you doubt Greenwald's independence, then you are not very good at reasoning. He's done more to shine a light on the inner workings of our surveillance state than any journalist since Woodward.

Personally, I don't care if GG or Jon Stewart or Bill O subscribe to the OCT (or don't publically share their doubts), the forensic evidence is the forensic evidence. Anyone with enough brains to analyze it, and who doesn't have an axe to grind, will find it compelling enough to want more answers than are available to the public.

i love abby martin. how much

i love abby martin. how much dissent are americans allowed to see expressed on american tv????????? i would wager none. esp regarding 911 truth. i even think the rt woman who quit may be lured by fox--the buzz feed woman said her resignation wasn't even seen on russian tv, so its effect is for american audience, not russian.

why is the link to abby's activism/marching for 911 truth removed? who did that?????? can't have any normally mainstream watchers piqued by abby's courageous truth telling impressed/influenced by her very cogently expressed intelligence and denigration for the official 911 fairy tale, after all, can we??? hang in there and keep your courage, abby. and nice to see you weren't even foul mouthed! much as the subjects always seem to deserve it, better to use your better, very eloquent vocabulary and honest heart. lynn b

ditto on

kevin ryan and his courageous pursuit of the truth about 9/11. my hero

Pull It !

"why is the link to abby's activism/marching for 911 truth removed? who did that??????"

If you were here a few minutes ago, you'll get the joke, but I'm not laughing.

May the power be with you Abby

Amongst all the BS and the journalistic sycophants, my God it is refreshing to hear someone speak the truth. Sincerest thanks to Abby for speaking truth from within the mosh-pit of insanity most media has become. May she keep following her moral compass; without that we are all lost.

I am reposting this link because the top comments, if put in order by "most faved", are almost universally in favor of Abby. Check out the first 50 or so:

As for James Kirchick, he wrote that Bradley Manning deserved execution for whistleblowing. He said, "His treason jeopardized American lives. The punishment should be death." Interesting. Does that mean that those who sent Americans to die in Iraq on false pretenses committed treason and should die?

From the first two comments

From the first two comments on that Huff Post article comes this cobbled-together quote:

"Six corporations control more than 90 percent of what Americans see, hear and read, Funny how the 'Land of the Free' requires so much propaganda to function...."

Funny, but not funny.


I knew this day would come.



The right enemies

'Outed'?! As if you ever concealed your 9/11 views!

Of course, it's people who get praised by the NY Times who should worry. When one is attacked by them, you have that much more confirmation that you must be doing something right.

Odd thing is, much that is damning about the 9/11 OCT has come out through the MSM--but they downplay it, then don't follow up. Or they simply explain things away by resorting to 'incompetence theory' and 'coincidence theory.' It was the Times itself that sued to have the 9/11 oral histories made public. When the courts ruled in their favor in 2005, the amount of on-the-record accounts attesting to explosions at the WTC on 9/11 vastly increased. Definitely not what the Times was intending.

Ny times

The ny times, home of that crack reporter, the infamous Judith Miller. No credibility. The Ny Times is a propaganda tool. We all know this.


the masks are coming off