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

71–80 of 267 posts

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#71

Post by BryantD »

billjings wrote: post #33
pydry wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

His ad hoc speeches during the Abu Ghraib reporting were also not fact checked, and he said some things which he later admitted were exaggerations. Some reporters need the discipline of fact checking; Hersh has always been very good when he had that, and very bad when he does not.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#72

Post by aredox »

DeLeeuw wrote: post #44
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.

The US was always opposed to Nord Stream and for good reasons. I'm in fact glad it's gone. Many people already speculated it was the US, because Biden himself literally says "we will bring an end to it": https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8 With a smirk. Even when pressed how he is going to do it. For me, Hersh' story is the secondary corroboration.

Yes, it overtly said he would do it. Even though it was a very secret operation that had to be hidden from Congress'gang of eight.

Totally how Biden rolls.

Oh, and they forgot to blow one of the pipes. Whoopsy!

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#73

Post by pphysch »

Sure, there are probably some holes/slight inaccuracies in Hersh's story. This particular "debunking" is mostly nitpicking. The tweet about the minesweeper path is a head-scratcher, because it sure looks like the boat slowed down/loitered near both blast sites.

It is interesting that the White House, CIA, State Department, and establishment media class all found the need to promptly respond to what they characterized as a "blog post" and "conspiracy theory" from a "discredited former journalist". Thousands of such speculations are published every day on the internet, and the government does not find the need to respond.

It is also interesting that none of the above government organizations volunteered an alternative explanation for who bombed their ally's critical infrastructure. You would think that the #1 intelligence service in the world would be able to offer some explanation on the matter, almost half a year later, to quell the speculation.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#74

Post by Natsu »

BryantD wrote: post #68
pydry wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And he got exactly the same reaction when he published the Abu Ghraib story. The Pentagon called it nonsense.

That seems like a risky rubric. Are we to conclude that anything the Pentagon denies is true?

That would actually be really interesting if someone tried to comprehensively go through past Pentagon denials and see how truthful they've been for the cases we're able to actually adjudicate one way or another these days.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#76

Post by djur »

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.

By the time Hersh first wrote about Abu Ghraib there had already been reporting on abuses by Amnesty International, and several days earlier some of the photos had been shown on 60 Minutes (as he mentions in the piece). The piece cites an Army report, credited to two named generals, and names seven suspects, six of whom were under active criminal prosecution. His report was published (and vetted!) by The New Yorker. The difference between that piece and this one in terms of sourcing and credibility is like night and day.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#77

Post by burkaman »

throwaway4good wrote: post #6

This text doesn’t really disproof the Hersh story beyond nitpicking some details and incorrect use of technical languages. (Admittedly it would be hard to disprove; and it is the accuser that has the burden of proof.) However the big issue is the complete shutdown of media coverage and that the governments of Denmark, Sweden, and Germany all keep their investigations secret.

"complete shutdown of media coverage" is completely false, there were many stories in major US outlets that explicitly called out the possibility that the US did it.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#78

Post by aredox »

DeLeeuw wrote: post #62
aredox wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the pipelines is still operational. Weird, eh?

Very weird. Would you volunteer a theory? (since that is probably all we can do for now).

I think you are smart enough to guess why, and infer who did it.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#80

Post by AlanYx »

There may be an incorrect statement regarding the Norwegian P-8 in the linked article.

The author states that that "they won’t enter into active service until later this year", but the source the author links to doesn't actually make that claim. All it says is that the P-3s will keep flying until sometime in 2023, when the "P-8 is ready to take over". I don't think that implies that Norway doesn't already have some P-8s in active operation.

Post reply on HN