5 ms·

I'd still give Hersh the benefit of the doubt he's not just listening to some internet troll type person. There has to be some reputation at play here for him t

by dmix 4y ago

I'd still give Hersh the benefit of the doubt he's not just listening to some internet troll type person. There has to be some reputation at play here for him to take it seriously. The odds are high it's someone connected to the US or NATO govs. At least you'd assume so. As another commenter mentioned, he claimed he used to the same fact checkers used by The New Yorker.

tptacek 4y ago
I would not give him the benefit of the doubt, and I have a hard time understanding why anybody would; there is more than ample reason to doubt any story he runs. I can't imagine a credible source working with him, so far has the presumption of accuracy been shifted on his work over the last 10 years. That's why a famous journalist is reduced to running stories from unnamed (and implausible) sources in the first place. "Since I posted my original article, I had a short email correspondence with Seymour Hersh, unfortunately he stopped replying once I asked him about several of the above mentioned inconsistencies and factual inaccuracies."
- dmix 4y ago
  Maybe it was an aging Intel guy relying on old reputation for credibility who later declined into pushing conspiracy tier thing, so basically two levels of Hersh like people cruising off past glory.
- halothane 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - astrange 4y ago
    A green account name accusing the #1 (#2?) poster on this site of being an op? Is this reverse psychology?
    - halothane 4y ago
      You must know about becoming a first time voter after being on the sidelines? Same here after seeing Seymour Hersch being denigrated and attacked just because some don't agree with his point of view, especially after he has done so much for our country, its ideals and founding principles. I'll take your comment at face value and assume you don't hate on first timers. Otherwise you would fall into the same category of an ad hominem.:)
DubiousPusher 4y ago
You should never give any reporter the benefit of any doubt.

by dmix 4y ago

tptacek 4y ago

I would not give him the benefit of the doubt, and I have a hard time understanding why anybody would; there is more than ample reason to doubt any story he runs. I can't imagine a credible source working with him, so far has the presumption of accuracy been shifted on his work over the last 10 years. That's why a famous journalist is reduced to running stories from unnamed (and implausible) sources in the first place. "Since I posted my original article, I had a short email correspondence with Seymour Hersh, unfortunately he stopped replying once I asked him about several of the above mentioned inconsistencies and factual inaccuracies."

dmix 4y ago
Maybe it was an aging Intel guy relying on old reputation for credibility who later declined into pushing conspiracy tier thing, so basically two levels of Hersh like people cruising off past glory.
halothane 4y ago
[flagged]
- astrange 4y ago
  A green account name accusing the #1 (#2?) poster on this site of being an op? Is this reverse psychology?
  - halothane 4y ago
    You must know about becoming a first time voter after being on the sidelines? Same here after seeing Seymour Hersch being denigrated and attacked just because some don't agree with his point of view, especially after he has done so much for our country, its ideals and founding principles. I'll take your comment at face value and assume you don't hate on first timers. Otherwise you would fall into the same category of an ad hominem.:)

DubiousPusher 4y ago

You should never give any reporter the benefit of any doubt.