General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums'ATTACK THE MESSENGER' — Seymour Hersh defends his blockbuster bin Laden story
Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh is pushing back against critics of his controversial story claiming the White House lied about key details of the Osama bin Laden raid.
Soon after the story was published in the London Review of Books on Sunday night, former CIA officials and national-security experts slammed Hersh's reporting, with CNN's Peter Bergen calling the piece "a farrago of nonsense."
And the White House blasted the story as full of inaccuracies and "baseless."
When reached at home by Business Insider on Monday afternoon, Hersh addressed some of the criticisms of his reporting, which have centered around his reliance on anonymous sources and an apparent lack of documentary evidence for his claims.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/seymour-hersh-defends-his-blockbuster-bin-laden-story-2015-5#ixzz3ZsZVFioz
NanceGreggs
(27,820 posts)... is allegedly relying on one unidentified anonymous source, while weaving a tale full of inconsistencies and contradictions, the "messenger" becomes suspect.
"An anonymous source has stated" is right up there with "some people are saying". I give equal credence to both.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)How many WaPo and NYT and Other "Newspapers of Record" use "Unidentified Sources in their reporting these days? How often are THEY QUESTIONED? They aren't ....yet the story is taken as truth depending on which side one is on.
imnew
(93 posts)gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Instead, we get a generic statement about "inconsistencies" and "baseless accusations" that never quite get to the substance. I've seen this movie before, and while the preliminary ending differs from time to time (viz. Woodward and Bernstein versus Gary Webb), eventually the truth seeps out.
Hestia
(3,818 posts)http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden
NanceGreggs
(27,820 posts)... or will not agree to be identified is an "anonymous source".
Journalism 101.
And, while we're at it, Common Sense 101.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Have to believe him. There has been some who wants take the credit, bottom line bin Laden is gone.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)bigtree
(86,008 posts)...criticism of that source is just as valid a response as his defense of the man's credibility.
Renew Deal
(81,883 posts)But I have seen people attack the story.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Dude's makin' some coin off this one.
Good for him, I guess.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Sad late chapter to an interesting career.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)critiques of his nutty gossip piece.
Relying solely on anonymous nobodies and retired ISI spooks is not journalism. It's stenography for the loonosphere.