3 ms·

Hersh stopped working within journalistic organizations, with their editors, fact-checkers, second-sourcing, etc - the organizations in which all his previous a

by pvg 4y ago

Hersh stopped working within journalistic organizations, with their editors, fact-checkers, second-sourcing, etc - the organizations in which all his previous and more credible and verifiable work was done. That's a concrete fact, not 'tribalistic bias'. There's no basis whatsoever for you to attribute skepticism of recent Hersh to it, it's just namecalling.

pphysch 4y ago
According to Hersh, he still does due diligence with editors and fact checking. He just doesn't have the brand sponsorships anymore.
- mannerheim 4y ago
  And yet, somehow his work ends up error-laden and full of holes. Funny how that works out.
  - pphysch 4y ago
    That's just not true. A handful of bloggers have nitpicked at it using publicly available information. All of Hersh's big stories received the same initial response of derision, going back to My Lai half a century ago [1]. Hersh, believe him or not, is not relying on publicly available information, but confidential sources. [1] - https://mobile.twitter.com/MarkAmesExiled/status/1626279696827617290 https://mobile.twitter.com/MarkAmesExiled/status/16262796968...
    - mannerheim 4y ago
      'Chlorine is just a gas. It's not a chemical warfare weapon. You smell it, you run away.' Sure sounds like the words of somebody who isn't going senile!
- graeme 4y ago
  There’s a difference between: 1. Convincing an editor to run your ideas under their masthead 2. Paying someone to edit your work, and running your ideas under your own masthead A newspaper is more than a brand. They put their reputation on the line when they publish. (You can make a good argument that many newspapers have trashed their own reputations, but that doesn’t negate the argument. When you self publish, you have no one vouching for you. Furthermore if you don’t like an editor or fact checker you can fire them)
zmgsabst 4y ago
Except that it’s legacy media who has eviscerated their reputation in the past decade. Eg, CNN has a lower viewership in the “key demo” than large YouTube news channels.
jrsj 4y ago
Even if he wanted to work within those journalistic organizations and everything he said was true, they wouldn’t publish it. There’s really no other option for him at this point.
- pvg 4y ago
  The fact they didn't want to work with him, after many years of him dropping huge bombshells they published, the literal foundation of his reputation, says more about his later work than than theirs, no? It's strange to claim his inability to find publishers for his non-verifiable work somehow confirms its credibility.

by pvg 4y ago

pphysch 4y ago

According to Hersh, he still does due diligence with editors and fact checking. He just doesn't have the brand sponsorships anymore.

mannerheim 4y ago
And yet, somehow his work ends up error-laden and full of holes. Funny how that works out.
- pphysch 4y ago
  That's just not true. A handful of bloggers have nitpicked at it using publicly available information. All of Hersh's big stories received the same initial response of derision, going back to My Lai half a century ago [1]. Hersh, believe him or not, is not relying on publicly available information, but confidential sources. [1] - https://mobile.twitter.com/MarkAmesExiled/status/1626279696827617290 https://mobile.twitter.com/MarkAmesExiled/status/16262796968...
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    'Chlorine is just a gas. It's not a chemical warfare weapon. You smell it, you run away.' Sure sounds like the words of somebody who isn't going senile!
graeme 4y ago
There’s a difference between: 1. Convincing an editor to run your ideas under their masthead 2. Paying someone to edit your work, and running your ideas under your own masthead A newspaper is more than a brand. They put their reputation on the line when they publish. (You can make a good argument that many newspapers have trashed their own reputations, but that doesn’t negate the argument. When you self publish, you have no one vouching for you. Furthermore if you don’t like an editor or fact checker you can fire them)

zmgsabst 4y ago

Except that it’s legacy media who has eviscerated their reputation in the past decade. Eg, CNN has a lower viewership in the “key demo” than large YouTube news channels.

jrsj 4y ago

Even if he wanted to work within those journalistic organizations and everything he said was true, they wouldn’t publish it. There’s really no other option for him at this point.

pvg 4y ago
The fact they didn't want to work with him, after many years of him dropping huge bombshells they published, the literal foundation of his reputation, says more about his later work than than theirs, no? It's strange to claim his inability to find publishers for his non-verifiable work somehow confirms its credibility.