3 ms·
No, he is making different points. Similarly, this is where I stopped reading the article: > Barrels of ink have been spilled ripping apart Hersh’s character,
by foxhedgehog 11y ago
No, he is making different points. Similarly, this is where I stopped reading the article:
> Barrels of ink have been spilled ripping apart Hersh’s character, while barely any follow-up reporting has been done to corroborate or refute his claims
The original poster's point isn't "this doesn't make sense to me." It's that the facts do not comport with reality.
One of the things that those who defend this kind of reporting love to trot out is the idea that any criticism is fallacious, and is "ad hominem."
Of course, there is plenty of ad hominem response out there, but cherry-picking these responses as representative, rather than engaging with substantive refutation, and then claiming that there is no such refutation is argument in bad faith.
In fact, there is a name for that particular kind of argument: a straw man.
- xyzzy123 11y agoWhat point is the poster making? That the anonymous sources have their own agendas? - “How are we to believe his anonymous sources?”. Can you tell me what other points there are to be found in there? > It's that the facts do not comport with reality. Which facts, specifically? There are certainly none mentioned in that post.
- foxhedgehog 11y agoI count a few points: 1. The article is not well-sourced. a. There are many anonymous sources, which is generally a bad practice; SH consequently may over-represent confidence in his material. b. It is difficult to track how many anonymous sources there are. c. It is unlikely that these sources would have access to the information that they claim. 2. The article has internal contradictions. I'm sure that we can flesh these out more if you would like, but none of these are ad hominem. Wrapping "exclusively anonymous sources are bad" as a criticism in with "Sy Hersh is an unreliable jerk" is also an argument in bad faith. The two are not equivalent, and the former is a sincere issue with this piece. Including it in with the latter has the effect of encouraging dismissal of both just because the latter is obviously fallacial.
- xyzzy123 11y ago1. It's a pity you stopped reading the article, because addressing the criticism of anonymous sources is about 1/3 of it. 2. A discussion of specific internal contradictions in the article would be interesting and valuable, unlike the original post. [Might make sense to make a new post for it, so it doesn't get buried though]. As to the "facts not comporting with reality", should I assume you have abandoned that claim? That would also be an interesting discussion. This is the whole point of the CJR article - that the media response so far has been largely fact-free.
- anonsource 11y agoNo...it's not the criticism of anonymous sources, it's the lack of consideration given to the possibility that the anonymous source is lying. If you bring out an anonymous source that is making these kind of assertions, you need more than a claim that it's a retired intel officer to achieve credibility.