Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

oalexanderdk.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 267 posts

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#31

Post by fakethenews2022 »

rexxxmi wrote: post #13
createdapril24 wrote: post #7

I regret that Hersh's reporting relied on anonymous officials. That's not a dig on Hersh - this is the standard for journalism on these topics. As a standard it creates a deniability to any story that comes out e.g. "they probably made it up", "the source doesn't know what they are talking about", "the source is influencing the journalist for their own ends". I think Hersh's article is interesting and useful however.…

Until someone else can corroborate Hersh's story, or Hersh provides hard evidence, this is whole thing is a nothing burger.

Until someone else takes credit for it, I'll take President Joe Biden's threat as evidence. Video link: https://youtube.com/shorts/FVbEoZXhCrM?feature=share

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#32

Post by aredox »

htwaterx wrote: post #17

While interesting, the author appears to be nitpicking. It does not really refute Hersh's story, because these minor inconsistencies appear in any news article, including the NYT. It is irrelevant whether Hersh gets all details right, the important thing is whether his source is correct on the big picture or not. It seems to me that the veracity of Hersh's claims cannot be decided by textual analysis, but rather by a…

The source is wrong on very basic details. And the big picture of the story is nonsensical: 1) this is a very very very secret operation that Congress shouldn't be informed about, but a shitton of services - including foreign countries - were involved 2) they laid the mines during... A very public and documented military exercise. They certainly couldn't do it from a nondescript modified fishing vessel, no, they had to make it obvious it was them. But very very very secret operation indeed.

This is just an idiot's idea of a secret military operation.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#33

Post by billjings »

pydry wrote: post #16
freitzkriesler2 wrote: post #3

After years and years of dubious, "anonymous sources" literally making up claims, I have come to doubt the truthfulness of nearly anyone who claims something from an anonymous sources. Even if it is from a well regarded journalist. This is a consequence of how far the profession has fallen.

Have you heard of Abu Ghraib? Most of his award winning journalism has relied upon anonymous sources. This is how it has always worked.

This isn't how it's always worked for Hersh, though.

The Abu Ghraib report was published by the New Yorker, which has fact checkers on staff. You cannot tell their stuff "my source is anonymous" and not have them confirm that source: the public may not know Hersh's sources for that work, but the New Yorker does.

Hersh's recent work is self published and not fact checked. Moreover, it is wild, and often logically at odds with itself (This operation was extremely secret, and yet the Treasury department was involved?). So: times have changed.

I love Substack, but Substack doesn't solve your reputation problem for you: if you were reliant on your editor to check your work (as Hersh clearly was), Substack gives you nothing to help out with that. It's a different world now, unfortunately, and it's made a crank out of Hersh.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#34

Post by JackFr »

pydry wrote: post #12
createdapril24 wrote: post #7

I regret that Hersh's reporting relied on anonymous officials. That's not a dig on Hersh - this is the standard for journalism on these topics. As a standard it creates a deniability to any story that comes out e.g. "they probably made it up", "the source doesn't know what they are talking about", "the source is influencing the journalist for their own ends". I think Hersh's article is interesting and useful however.…

>I regret that Hersh's reporting relied on anonymous officials. Nobody much wanted to talk on the record about My Lai or Abu Ghraib when it happened either.

Really? People absolutely went on the record about My Lai.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#35

Post by rexxxmi »

fakethenews2022 wrote: post #31
rexxxmi wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until someone else can corroborate Hersh's story, or Hersh provides hard evidence, this is whole thing is a nothing burger.

Until someone else takes credit for it, I'll take President Joe Biden's threat as evidence. Video link: https://youtube.com/shorts/FVbEoZXhCrM?feature=share

Like I said, until someone can provide hard evidence, which that is not, I'll continue to hold reservations as any reasonable person would.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#36

Post by aredox »

ajross wrote: post #2

It does seem like what happened is that Hersh got a legitimate source (probably in the US or Norwegian intelligence community) who was willing to talk about an existing plan for this kind of operation, and then spun it into a story just declaring that it happened that way. In point of fact probably every major player in the region had a plan like this. Nord Stream 2 was a huge football for everyone with interest. We…

Do you think any US or Norwegian would say that Soltenberg is "the glove that fits America's hand"?

(Hat tip to the Grugq for pointing out this weirdness)

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#37

Post by zosima »

tomohawk wrote: post #23
ed25519FUUU wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you name a single other instance in history where a country at war significantly damaged its ability to raise money for the war to “send a message”? What exactly is the message? The US didn’t think Russia had a submersible and some C4 and now they do?

In WWI, Germany attacked France, it's largest trading partner.

Germany declared war on Russia which was allied with France. And Germany did not declare war on any of those countries out of will, but due to an alliance with the Austro-Hungarian empire.

The situation is not even remotely comparable.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#38

Post by vadiml »

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #19
macintux wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that Russia would use it as a reminder that they could sabotage other pipelines doesn’t seem so far-fetched.

Can you name a single other instance in history where a country at war significantly damaged its ability to raise money for the war to “send a message”? What exactly is the message? The US didn’t think Russia had a submersible and some C4 and now they do?

Well, a strategic goal to let Europeans suffer during winter in order to shatter our resolve to support Ukraine, while avoiding contractual penalties for unilateral cessation of gaz delivery, can explain the benefit of exploding the pipeline. This can explain also the fact that the fourth pipe was left intact - as a potential carrot to Europe... I do not pretend that the above is truth, but it seams to be a plausible explanation.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#39

Post by BWStearns »

To the people are saying "oh this is just nitpicking", it's not. Hersh's claims are extraordinary[0], and require if not extraordinary evidence, at least evidence that's not sloppy as hell.

Given the subject matter it's completely reasonable that he could only have anonymous sources. But when you have anonymous sources then their information has to line up with reality. If it doesn't then you're either getting played or dealing with someone who has kind of lost it and maybe is exaggerating/misinterpreting information that they _do_ have access to. Getting basic claims wrong like the kind of boats involved, or the location of the attack, or the equipment required is disqualifying enough to disregard other more salacious claims.

That all said: the US may very well have been behind it, but Hersh does nothing to prove that in his original article in light of the inconsistencies.

[0] Not so extraordinary that we would blow up a pipeline, but that Biden would pull the silly "I'm-not-covert-actioning" word game. It's stupid and wouldn't shield him from accountability any more than just telling DevGru/DO(or whatever the abbreviation is now) not to tell gang of 8.

Post reply on HN