←back to thread

688 points hunglee2 | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mmastrac ◴[] No.34713024[source]
It's a great story, but it's all unsourced and could be a decent Tom Clancy story at best. You could probably write a similar one with Russia or German agents as the key players and be just as convincing.

The only anchor in reality appears to be Biden suggesting that they knew how to take it out which seems like a pretty weak place to build a large story.

What I find particularly odd is that this entire thing appears to be based on a single, unnamed source "with direct knowledge of the operational planning".

replies(18): >>34713169 #>>34713289 #>>34713318 #>>34713618 #>>34714956 #>>34715192 #>>34715760 #>>34716271 #>>34716360 #>>34717677 #>>34717883 #>>34718313 #>>34718875 #>>34719021 #>>34719781 #>>34727938 #>>34730841 #>>34835658 #
drewda ◴[] No.34716271[source]
Seymour Hersh has decades of credibility from reporting the My Lai Massacre to the abuses at Abu Graib.

But he does often rely on sources who remain anonymous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Use_of_anonymous...

I did find it interesting in that Wikipedia article to read that The New Yorker's editor insists on knowing the identify of all of the anonymous sources that Hersh has used when his reporting is published in that magazine. That suggests to me that while Hersh can probably be generally trusted, his work is of a higher quality when it's published in an outlet like The New Yorker, as the editor-in-chief and other staff submit it to a more rigorous internal discussion. That's in comparison to probably no internal review or discussion by Substack.

replies(9): >>34716463 #>>34716498 #>>34716904 #>>34717161 #>>34717803 #>>34717862 #>>34718156 #>>34718447 #>>34729426 #
Lazare ◴[] No.34716904[source]
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.

replies(2): >>34718468 #>>34722625 #
jonstewart ◴[] No.34718468[source]
The 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.

replies(2): >>34719300 #>>34722899 #
beaned ◴[] No.34719300[source]
How can you call his sources crank without knowing who they are yourself?
replies(3): >>34721087 #>>34722111 #>>34722608 #
1. asimpletune ◴[] No.34722608[source]
I 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.
replies(1): >>34723708 #
2. jonstewart ◴[] No.34723708[source]
This piece posits a “crank theory” of Seymour Hersh:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/05/seymour-hershs-u...

replies(1): >>34725072 #
3. leereeves ◴[] No.34725072[source]
Of 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.

replies(1): >>34725780 #
4. naasking ◴[] No.34725780{3}[source]
Seriously. 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.