5 ms·
Seymour Hersh has had a long and storied career, and he has made some very bold claims that later turned out to be correct. He's also, especially recently, mad
by Lazare 4y ago
Seymour Hersh has had a long and storied career, and he has made some very bold claims that later turned out to be correct.
He's also, especially recently, made some very bold claims that so far have not turned out to be correct, whether because the truth just hasn't been revealed yet, or because Hersh was wrong or misled by his sources.
It's also worth noting that Hersh - as with any journalist - is only as good as his sources. If people choose to leak juicy secrets to him (not implausible!) he may end up publishing accurate stories that reveal nefarious conspiracies (which has happened). If people choose to give him lies and misinformation, he may end up publishing conspiracy theories instead. And as he keeps publishing, the odds that this will happen (if it hasn't already) keep increasing.
So I absolutely wouldn't write off any claim Hersh makes, but I wouldn't blindly believe it either. And here he is relying, by his own admission, almost entirely on a single anonymous source, giving details that can't really be independently confirmed.
Was Hersh told by someone that the US took out the pipeline? Probably! Does that mean the US did so? I'm not sure I'd seriously update my priors based on this.
- jonstewart 4y agoThe thing that a good journalist would do is be skeptical of his crank sources and try to confirm them with reputable sources and evidence. He does neither. But a broken clock is right twice a day and a bad journalist can break two big stories in a career of publishing lies.
- beaned 4y agoHow can you call his sources crank without knowing who they are yourself?
- tazjin 4y agoEasy - they reported things that don't fit into this person's worldview.
- camgunz 4y agoBecause if the best you can do as a whistleblower is to give anonymous info to an independent reporter who won't verify it, you're probably on the crank side of things.
- asimpletune 4y agoI don’t think he’s calling him a crank, anymore than he’s talking about a specific broken clock being right twice a day. It’s just hypothetical to demonstrate a point. If he were a crank journalist, being accidentally right twice could still make him a journalistic legend. Therefore, we can’t trust simply because he’s famous, because a broken clock is right twice a day.
- jonstewart 4y agoThis piece posits a “crank theory” of Seymour Hersh: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/05/seymour-hershs-unreliable-london-review-of-books-investigation-the-national-security-reporters-account-of-the-bin-laden-raid-has-familiar-flaws.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/05/seymour-hershs-u...
- leereeves 4y agoOf course, it's difficult to tell whether articles like that were written because Hersh is wrong, or because he is right. There are plenty of powerful people trying to discredit reporters who tell who tell the truth, so we should also be skeptical of attacks on Hersh.
- naasking 4y agoSeriously. The article's author couldn't think of any reason why they might want to stage the bin Laden assassination? I can think of a bunch of reasons just off the top of my head. Doesn't make the story true, but the author is conspicuously unimaginative.
- kjlrt 4y agoI think this case is special in that the source would get the Snowden treatment if the name leaks. If you publish all at once, others can go and verify the details. The source is protected. If you verify pre-publication, e.g., go to the diving school in Florida and ask too many questions, you (and the source) will be under surveillance in no time.
- trogdor 4y ago>If people choose to give him lies and misinformation, he may end up publishing conspiracy theories instead. I am an investigative reporter who covers crime, and my sources often insist on anonymity. There are ways to mitigate the possibility of being lied to. All of my sources know that we have a deal: I promise to do everything that I reasonably can to keep their identity secret, and they promise me the truth. If a source lies to me or intentionally misleads me, my agreement to keep their identity secret no longer stands. There’s more to it than that, but that’s the gist, and it has worked well for years. I have never burned a source, and as far as I know, I have never published an investigative story that is wrong about anything material.
- make3 4y agoyou're holding their identity hostage like that? I would just not talk to you
- iconjack 4y agoWhat are some of your stories?
- nborwankar 4y agoYes but would you publish this big a story without corroboration? It’s the single source that’s more of a problem than the anonymity.
- trogdor 4y ago>Yes but would you publish this big a story without corroboration? It’s the single source that’s more of a problem than the anonymity. No, but corroboration doesn't require multiple sources. For example, sources often provide copies of official records that corroborate their story. That can be enough, particularly when the authenticity of the records can be independently verified.