Seymour Hersh – Why Substack?
seymourhersh.substack.com
Seymour Hersh – Why Substack?
1–10 of 13 posts
Re: Seymour Hersh – Why Substack?
#2> I won a Pulitzer Prize for international reporting for that work
Proof by authority?
> I’ve been told my stories were wrong, invented, outrageous for as long as I can remember
That doesn't mean that every story by him that is called wrong is right.
> What you’ll find here is, I hope, a reflection of that freedom.
Freedom doesn't equate to truth. On the internet everybody can claim everything.
Especially if you are drawing from anonymous sources. Nobody else can verify those. And can you be sure that you aren't used as a tool for disinformation?
Re: Seymour Hersh – Why Substack?
#3> I won a Pulitzer Prize for international reporting for that work Proof by authority? > I’ve been told my stories were wrong, invented, outrageous for as long as I can remember That doesn't mean that every story by him that is called wrong is right. > What you’ll find here is, I hope, a reflection of that freedom. Freedom doesn't equate to truth. On the internet everybody can claim everything. Especially if you are…
>Proof by authority?
Not sure how this “proof by authority” cynicism applies here. Those events are pretty well established by now and he won a Pulitzer for breaking the story in the face of coverup… isn’t that exactly what high-quality journalism should be? And be rewarded for? There might be an unseemly bragging tone but it doesn’t make it any less true. What’s next - Einstein’s Nobels are also proof by authority?
Relevant (accurate) past recognition should be taken into account as a prior when evaluating uncertain present claims. It doesn’t mean they’re automatically right, and evidence/arguments should be evaluated on their own merit as much as possible, but in the face of opaque fog of war, are you suggesting this journalist should be taken no more seriously than some rando off the street?
Re: Seymour Hersh – Why Substack?
#4> “What you’ll find here is, I hope, a reflection of that freedom. The story you will read today is the truth as I worked for three months to find, with no pressure from a publisher, editors or peers to make it hew to certain lines of thought—or pare it back to assuage their fears. Substack simply means reporting is back . . . unfiltered and unprogrammed—just the way I like it.”
While it is true that past performance is no guarantee of future results, this piece describes his long professional experience with similar situations, where his reporting was first denied, later shown to be true and even got journalistic prizes for it.
That means he’s more likely than average to be right. He has his reputation at stake, and experience vetting anonymous sources.
Re: Seymour Hersh – Why Substack?
#5> “What you’ll find here is, I hope, a reflection of that freedom. The story you will read today is the truth as I worked for three months to find, with no pressure from a publisher, editors or peers to make it hew to certain lines of thought—or pare it back to assuage their fears. Substack simply means reporting is back . . . unfiltered and unprogrammed—just the way I like it.” While it is true that past performance…
The difference between the old stories from Hersh and the new ones is that the old ones have corroborating evidence and documents or images. Abu Ghraib wasn't just alleged by a single anonymous source, there were pictures and other evidence.
It is quite noticeable that the more recent stories by Hersh are entirely based on anonymous sources. And e.g. with the Nordstream article there were quite a few specific facts that were immediately called into question as they contradict public knowledge.
Re: Seymour Hersh – Why Substack?
#6> I won a Pulitzer Prize for international reporting for that work Proof by authority? > I’ve been told my stories were wrong, invented, outrageous for as long as I can remember That doesn't mean that every story by him that is called wrong is right. > What you’ll find here is, I hope, a reflection of that freedom. Freedom doesn't equate to truth. On the internet everybody can claim everything. Especially if you are…
>Proof by authority? Not sure how this “proof by authority” cynicism applies here. Those events are pretty well established by now and he won a Pulitzer for breaking the story in the face of coverup… isn’t that exactly what high-quality journalism should be? And be rewarded for? There might be an unseemly bragging tone but it doesn’t make it any less true. What’s next - Einstein’s Nobels are also proof by authority?…
The proof by authority criticism is for the implied "I've been right in the past (I even got awarded for that) therefore I must be right now as well".
> What’s next - Einstein’s Nobels are also proof by authority?
If you use them as an argument for Einstein's later work, then yes. Einstein's later work for example for black holes was completely wrong.
Re: Seymour Hersh – Why Substack?
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Proof by authority? Not sure how this “proof by authority” cynicism applies here. Those events are pretty well established by now and he won a Pulitzer for breaking the story in the face of coverup… isn’t that exactly what high-quality journalism should be? And be rewarded for? There might be an unseemly bragging tone but it doesn’t make it any less true. What’s next - Einstein’s Nobels are also proof by authority?…
The proof by authority criticism is for the implied "I've been right in the past (I even got awarded for that) therefore I must be right now as well". > What’s next - Einstein’s Nobels are also proof by authority? If you use them as an argument for Einstein's later work, then yes. Einstein's later work for example for black holes was completely wrong.
Good points and I mostly agree here… important to have healthy skepticism but I still don’t think previous well-deserved recognition should be deemed irrelevant in areas where trust plays a big factor (like where where anonymous sources can’t be verified).
If there are verifiable counter-claims/evidence then that’s where the action should be.
Re: Seymour Hersh – Why Substack?
#8He sure yadda yadda yaddaed his way between 2004 and today.
Re: Seymour Hersh – Why Substack?
#9> I won a Pulitzer Prize for international reporting for that work Proof by authority? > I’ve been told my stories were wrong, invented, outrageous for as long as I can remember That doesn't mean that every story by him that is called wrong is right. > What you’ll find here is, I hope, a reflection of that freedom. Freedom doesn't equate to truth. On the internet everybody can claim everything. Especially if you are…
>Proof by authority?
Knee-jerk reaction?
It's not offered as proof, it's offered in the standard way reputation works...
Re: Seymour Hersh – Why Substack?
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Proof by authority? Not sure how this “proof by authority” cynicism applies here. Those events are pretty well established by now and he won a Pulitzer for breaking the story in the face of coverup… isn’t that exactly what high-quality journalism should be? And be rewarded for? There might be an unseemly bragging tone but it doesn’t make it any less true. What’s next - Einstein’s Nobels are also proof by authority?…
The proof by authority criticism is for the implied "I've been right in the past (I even got awarded for that) therefore I must be right now as well". > What’s next - Einstein’s Nobels are also proof by authority? If you use them as an argument for Einstein's later work, then yes. Einstein's later work for example for black holes was completely wrong.
>The proof by authority criticism is for the implied "I've been right in the past (I even got awarded for that) therefore I must be right now as well".
Or, you know, rather merely the implied:
"I'm just some random conspiracy theorist, some fresh of the bus aspiring journalist, or some blogger that got in over their head, I've got a proven track record of working with diffucult and covered/denied stories, being proven right, doing succesful investigate journalism, and bringing up major stories. Pulitzer level track record."