this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
588 points (82.3% liked)
World News
32510 readers
487 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I advise caution with Hersh's reporting. It was weak to begin with, relying on a single source. It's not improved at all since publication, with no one coming forward even anonymously to corroborate the claims. Seymour Hersh has published important stories, but he's gotten sloppy with this one.
Yes stranger on the internet, the most decorated investigative journalist alive has "gotten sloppy' you say. So who's more credible here, the guy who broke My Lai and Abu Ghraib, reported on Watergate and the secret bombing of Cambodia, won a Pulitzer and a record five Polk awards, or you, some anonymous commenter on the internet, laughably calling it "weak", "cautioning" against it? You don't think other bootlickers in the past have called his reports on My Lai, Cambodia or Abu Ghraib "weak"?
His reporting on My Lai was based on internal government documents. Abu Ghraib was already being reported by other sources like Amnesty International, so he was backing up by other reporting there.
Thing is, I'm not asking you to trust me. Not one bit. I'm asking you to apply an appropriate level of skepticism. Common practice for an accusation this serious is to get more people talking. But here, the whole accusation rests on one source. Why should we trust this source? Because Seymour Hersh said they know stuff? And since then, nothing. Now maybe Hersh is still digging and will publish something in the future. If so, I'm all ears. Until, I stay skeptical.
And it's not just me pointing to how Hersh uses anonymous sources as being problematic. His Wikipedia article has a lengthy section covering both criticism and defense.
The US is the most obvious party to have carried this out and is the only one who would benefit.
It's so obvious the US President might as well have come out and said if there's a war, Nord Stream 2 will be destroyed