4 ms·

Years ago I had the privilege of driving Hersh around when he came to speak at my college, so of course I'm inclined to like him. But yes, his process as a jour

by danso 8y ago

Years ago I had the privilege of driving Hersh around when he came to speak at my college, so of course I'm inclined to like him. But yes, his process as a journalist -- to rely so heavily on anonymous sources -- makes his work hard to follow. His reasoning is that this type of sourcing is the only way to get the most important secrets. But plenty of important work has been done without such secrecy. It's debatable that Hersh is the one who broke Abu Ghraib considering 60 Minutes II published a week before [0] Hersh. And the AP broke the story months before, [1] although the story seems to have gotten little traction because, at that time, the military hadn't yet initiated a major investigation [1]. This isn't to say that Hersh's New Yorker story didn't have a profound impact. But it was a story not only corroborated by other news sources, but by plenty of official documentation. The investigations of Hersh's that get the most criticism do not have such supplementary evidence. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#60_Minutes_II_broadcast,_2004 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisone... [1] http://legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/world/iraq/20031101-0936-iraq-thecamps.html http://legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/world/iraq/20031...

tptacek 8y ago
What's disquieting is how well you can imagine the M.O. he deploys working. People remember the big stories you get right. Unless you go really, really big --- like claiming that Obama falsified the UBL killing --- nobody remembers the random stuff you took flyers on.
- Amezarak 8y ago
  Do you have any details on the OBL thing? Other reporting seems to corroborate Hersh. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/magazine/the-detail-in-seymour-hershs-bin-laden-story-that-rings-true.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/magazine/the-detail-in-se...
  - tptacek 8y ago
    That piece goes out of its way to concur with just one detail of Hersh's story. And both the official story and the NYT reporter's story can be true at the same time: there could have been a Pakistani military source to US intelligence and a parallel operation to establish UBL's location without relying on (and thus compromising) that same source. Hersh had a lot more to say about UBL's killing than just that.
    - Amezarak 8y ago
      The article says much more than that: > Two years later, when I was researching my book, I learned from a high-level member of the Pakistani intelligence service that the ISI had been hiding Bin Laden and ran a desk specifically to handle him as an intelligence asset. After the book came out, I learned more: that it was indeed a Pakistani Army brigadier — all the senior officers of the ISI are in the military — who told the C.I.A. where Bin Laden was hiding, and that Bin Laden was living there with the knowledge and protection of the ISI. > The local police told me that they received the calls and could have been at the compound within minutes, but army commanders ordered them to stand down and leave the response to the military. Yet despite being barracked nearby, members of the Pakistani Army appear to have arrived only after the SEALs — who spent 40 minutes on the ground without encountering any soldiers — left. Hersh's key claims were that the Pakistani intelligence was hiding OBL, eventually they (or at least one of them) let the US in on the fact, and that the US essentially went on a cakewalk to kill him, all of which are corroborated by other reporting. What are the major details that have been debunked?
      - tptacek 8y ago
        No, that's not Hersh's key claim. Hersh's key claim is that UBL was captured by Pakistan in 2006(!) and ransomed to the US in exchange for increased aid and influence in Afghanistan --- that the UBL story we all heard was an elaborate ruse to cover up a quid pro quo conspiracy that involved not just Pakistan but Saudi Arabia. In fact, after UBL was killed, we cut aid to Pakistan, and increased our military presence in Afghanistan. Again: it's not a crazy argument to suggest people in Pakistan may have had intelligence about UBL's location (after all, we got intelligence about UBL, and we suck at this) and that someone who was read in ratted UBL out for the reward money. But that's not all Hersh reported! This is the problem with a lot of Hersh-style reporting: it sometimes starts from a plausible kernel and extrapolates wildly.
  - danso 8y ago
    Other reporting has corroborated some of Hersh's reporting, but not all of it. In the article you've posted, for instance: > I cannot confirm Hersh’s bolder claims — for example, that two of Pakistan’s top generals, Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the former army chief, and Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the director of the ISI, had advance knowledge of the raid. But I would not necessarily dismiss the claims immediately. Here's a roundup from the Columbia Journalism Review that criticizes the mainstream press for being so dismissive of Hersh's story: https://www.cjr.org/analysis/seymour_hersh_osama_bin_laden.php https://www.cjr.org/analysis/seymour_hersh_osama_bin_laden.p... Here's a less pro-Hersh roundup by the NYMag, on the topic of whether Hersh's account should be trusted: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/how-solid-is-this-story-on-the-bin-laden-raid.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/how-solid-is-th... But AFAIK, the main claims haven't been "proven" or disproven. Though I think most people agree that the initial accounts, including the August 2011 New Yorker story [0] (which was not by Hersh) and "Zero Dark Thirty", have had worthwhile questions raised about their veracity. If you want a deep dive on the topic, this October 2015 NYT story is one of the longer that I've read. Not sure what's changed since then: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/magazine/what-do-we-really-know-about-osama-bin-ladens-death.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/magazine/what-do-we-reall... [0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/08/08/getting-bin-laden https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/08/08/getting-bin-la...
    - forapurpose 8y ago
      > Zero Dark Thirty That was entertainment - historical fiction - not documentary.
      - danso 8y ago
        The filmmakers had substantial cooperation with the CIA and military, which means that this narrative is likely what the government wants people to believe: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/magazine/what-do-we-really-know-about-osama-bin-ladens-death.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/magazine/what-do-we-reall... > The opening credits announced that the film was based on ‘‘firsthand accounts of actual events.’’ And, as a trove of documents made public via the Freedom of Information Act amply demonstrated, the C.I.A. eagerly cooperated with the filmmakers, arranging for the writer and director to meet with numerous analysts and officers who were identified as being involved in the hunt for bin Laden. The director, Kathryn Bigelow, has described the film as ‘‘the first rough cut of history.’’ I'm not arguing that it is the truth, but it is, like it or not, likely the most popular and well-known narrative, partly because it was billed as being informed by official sources.

by danso 8y ago

tptacek 8y ago

What's disquieting is how well you can imagine the M.O. he deploys working. People remember the big stories you get right. Unless you go really, really big --- like claiming that Obama falsified the UBL killing --- nobody remembers the random stuff you took flyers on.

Amezarak 8y ago
Do you have any details on the OBL thing? Other reporting seems to corroborate Hersh. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/magazine/the-detail-in-seymour-hershs-bin-laden-story-that-rings-true.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/magazine/the-detail-in-se...
- tptacek 8y ago
  That piece goes out of its way to concur with just one detail of Hersh's story. And both the official story and the NYT reporter's story can be true at the same time: there could have been a Pakistani military source to US intelligence and a parallel operation to establish UBL's location without relying on (and thus compromising) that same source. Hersh had a lot more to say about UBL's killing than just that.
  - Amezarak 8y ago
    The article says much more than that: > Two years later, when I was researching my book, I learned from a high-level member of the Pakistani intelligence service that the ISI had been hiding Bin Laden and ran a desk specifically to handle him as an intelligence asset. After the book came out, I learned more: that it was indeed a Pakistani Army brigadier — all the senior officers of the ISI are in the military — who told the C.I.A. where Bin Laden was hiding, and that Bin Laden was living there with the knowledge and protection of the ISI. > The local police told me that they received the calls and could have been at the compound within minutes, but army commanders ordered them to stand down and leave the response to the military. Yet despite being barracked nearby, members of the Pakistani Army appear to have arrived only after the SEALs — who spent 40 minutes on the ground without encountering any soldiers — left. Hersh's key claims were that the Pakistani intelligence was hiding OBL, eventually they (or at least one of them) let the US in on the fact, and that the US essentially went on a cakewalk to kill him, all of which are corroborated by other reporting. What are the major details that have been debunked?
    - tptacek 8y ago
      No, that's not Hersh's key claim. Hersh's key claim is that UBL was captured by Pakistan in 2006(!) and ransomed to the US in exchange for increased aid and influence in Afghanistan --- that the UBL story we all heard was an elaborate ruse to cover up a quid pro quo conspiracy that involved not just Pakistan but Saudi Arabia. In fact, after UBL was killed, we cut aid to Pakistan, and increased our military presence in Afghanistan. Again: it's not a crazy argument to suggest people in Pakistan may have had intelligence about UBL's location (after all, we got intelligence about UBL, and we suck at this) and that someone who was read in ratted UBL out for the reward money. But that's not all Hersh reported! This is the problem with a lot of Hersh-style reporting: it sometimes starts from a plausible kernel and extrapolates wildly.
- danso 8y ago
  Other reporting has corroborated some of Hersh's reporting, but not all of it. In the article you've posted, for instance: > I cannot confirm Hersh’s bolder claims — for example, that two of Pakistan’s top generals, Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the former army chief, and Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the director of the ISI, had advance knowledge of the raid. But I would not necessarily dismiss the claims immediately. Here's a roundup from the Columbia Journalism Review that criticizes the mainstream press for being so dismissive of Hersh's story: https://www.cjr.org/analysis/seymour_hersh_osama_bin_laden.php https://www.cjr.org/analysis/seymour_hersh_osama_bin_laden.p... Here's a less pro-Hersh roundup by the NYMag, on the topic of whether Hersh's account should be trusted: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/how-solid-is-this-story-on-the-bin-laden-raid.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/how-solid-is-th... But AFAIK, the main claims haven't been "proven" or disproven. Though I think most people agree that the initial accounts, including the August 2011 New Yorker story [0] (which was not by Hersh) and "Zero Dark Thirty", have had worthwhile questions raised about their veracity. If you want a deep dive on the topic, this October 2015 NYT story is one of the longer that I've read. Not sure what's changed since then: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/magazine/what-do-we-really-know-about-osama-bin-ladens-death.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/magazine/what-do-we-reall... [0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/08/08/getting-bin-laden https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/08/08/getting-bin-la...
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > Zero Dark Thirty That was entertainment - historical fiction - not documentary.
    - danso 8y ago
      The filmmakers had substantial cooperation with the CIA and military, which means that this narrative is likely what the government wants people to believe: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/magazine/what-do-we-really-know-about-osama-bin-ladens-death.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/magazine/what-do-we-reall... > The opening credits announced that the film was based on ‘‘firsthand accounts of actual events.’’ And, as a trove of documents made public via the Freedom of Information Act amply demonstrated, the C.I.A. eagerly cooperated with the filmmakers, arranging for the writer and director to meet with numerous analysts and officers who were identified as being involved in the hunt for bin Laden. The director, Kathryn Bigelow, has described the film as ‘‘the first rough cut of history.’’ I'm not arguing that it is the truth, but it is, like it or not, likely the most popular and well-known narrative, partly because it was billed as being informed by official sources.