“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

Seymour Hersh has a very credible background and reputation. Assuming he is still lucid in his age, hasn't become a senile puppet of a ghost writer, then it would be foolish to write off his claims just because he isn't telling you who his source is.

His reporting on Syria lost him some credibility. It appears from my perspective that he has a bias toward always thinking the U.S. is the culprit. Given the power of the U.S. and it’s history of shenanigans he’ll often times be right.

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2018-07-22/ty-article-opinio...

The "Dirty War" over Syria is ongoing (US boots are literally on the ground right now) and there are many documented disinformation campaigns revolving around it from both sides, including from Western intelligence mouthpieces like Bellingcat. To assert that it is "settled" and Hersh is therefore "debunked" is deeply disingenuous.

https://mronline.org/2021/10/11/bellingcat-funded-by-u-s-and...

Hersh was once a reputable journalist. But now he is predominantly a cheerleader for authoritarian regimes that makes up "anonymous sources" to back up his claims.

  As soon as he has made an assertion he cites a 'source' to back it. In every case this is either an un-named former official or an unidentified secret document passed to Hersh in unknown circumstances. […] By my count Hersh has anonymous 'sources' inside 30 foreign governments and virtually every department of the U.S. government.

What is settled is Russia’s crimes in Syria and their indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Seymour lost credibility by disregarding these facts in his reporting. The U.S. is still involved there and the U.S. hardly can take the moral high ground when it comes to the Middle East but neither can Russia and Seymour acts as if they can.

Please don't copy/paste comments.

The US is actively occupying Syria, facilitating the theft of its natural resources including oil to (also occupied) Northern Iraq, while backing AQ-affiliated terrorists like Abu Mohammad al-Jolani to advance its goal of overthrowing the legal Syrian government.

US state media literally aired a puff piece for Jolani, including interviews from top DoD officials. It is staggering [1].

These are all undisputed facts which I can supply primary evidence to support. Russia is doing nothing of the sort. Some civilians possibly died as collateral as Russia targeted extremist strongholds in extremist-controlled Idlib. In fact, outside the West, Russia is credited with preventing Syria from turning into an Iraq/Libya-style disaster.

[1] - https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/the-jihadist/...?

He's lost his credibility over the years. Which is likely why this didn't get published by NY Times.

It's long but after reading this ask why you would believe this man who, in this new article, is making plenty of assertions all based on quotes from a single anonymous source.

https://www.vox.com/2015/5/11/8584473/seymour-hersh-osama-bi...

PBS is not state media. Jolani is still designated as a terrorist by the U.S. And northern Iraq is occupied by... the people who have lived there for probably 4,000 years (but admitted were only identified as a separate demographic in the 16th century).

Suppose this story was written by a "credible" reporter. Do you think NYT's Foreign Editors would allow it to be published? Would it pass the national security screening?

What do you call it, then, when a media group uncritically platforms active DoD officials on current affairs? Ask yourself, how do they even get that level of access? It's de facto state media. In this case, PBS is directly acting as a mouthpiece for the Department of Defense and intelligence agencies.

Northern Iraq, like Eastern Syria is currently occupied by US military forces. The Iraqi government has asked them to end the illegal occupation.

Claims and sources are supposed verified in journalism. In the case of anonymous sources a journalist can't just bring to his manager a quote and say he's anonymous because that journalist (as many have over the years) might have just made it up. The manager has to know the identity of the source. If the journalist won't share the identity then it won't fly. So if someone else brought this story to NY Times, they would have to give the identity of the source, the manager would need to verify that this source was in a position (time, place, job, what have you) to know the things claimed. And would usually want to hunt down another source that corroborates what this anonymous source says to give it some weight.

Yes, I understand how journalism is supposed to work in theory.

A news outlet interviews U.S. DoD officials. They also interview people the U.S. designates as terrorists. They get perspectives from all sides.

And your conclusion is that... this indicates extreme bias?

I never used the words "extreme bias". I said "state media", the act of propagating the official government narrative. This is what PBS frequently does, and why it gets unprecedented access to government officials. It's not morally wrong, but we shouldn't be afraid to call it out for what it is.

Have you even watched the program?

> Do you think NYT's Foreign Editors would allow it to be published?

If someone had an inside source on deep background with evidence of an American cover-up? Hell yes they would. And if they wouldn't, the Journal would pay a premium.

The New York Times is not the New York Post. The former has numerous guardrails (including the aforementioned Foreign Editors and NatSec screenings, the latter of which you ignored) to prevent a rogue journalist or editor from publishing a big story that could jeopardize the entire organization's government relations.

> it would be foolish

or would it be prudent to wait for evidence, to err on the side of caution ?

Seymour Hersh is also 85 years old, long into his retirement with likely partially declining faculties. When you get older your "bullshit filter" starts to go away as well. Also he has a long career of attacking the US government so anything that "rhymes" with that is going to fit his own confirmation bias.

Your logical fallacy: Dismissal by referring to general facts that don’t necessarily pertain to a particular individual. You don’t know anything about his age-related cognitive decline, i.e. if there even is any. Some people get it relatively young, some relatively (and absolutely) older.

on the other hand, the older i get, the less patience i have... with checking out facts, with stupidity, with LOTS of things (it becomes a waste of what is becoming a more and more precious resource - my time). In hersh's case, he has been immersed in the muck for so long, it's become his frame of reference. and if something reverberates he trusts his "instincts". maybe rightfully so, maybe wrongully so - nobody but an insider with the facts really knows. and we as outsiders have to decide on a purely subjective basis if to believe him or not.

(sorry for being so long winded - it comes with the age)

yes. but what does that entail in the case of the blowing up of GS2?