Hersh: Obama Did It

[honorentheos]

Then perhaps Honor should provide a few concrete examples of Limbaugh's work and compare them to Hersh's article? That way we can all see how Hersh is like Limbaugh. I think it's just a smear relied on to justify a hasty conclusion about an article Honor doesn't like, but I'm open to changing my mind.

It is easier than that. Does the information in the article follow the claimed pattern or not? If not, which of the other claims are true and not available from other sources that came out prior to Hersh's article? Or are you arguing conmen don't rely on this method to create bias that allows unsupported claims to hitch a ride on their credibility?

[Dr Exiled]

Then perhaps Honor should provide a few concrete examples of Limbaugh's work and compare them to Hersh's article? That way we can all see how Hersh is like Limbaugh. I think it's just a smear relied on to justify a hasty conclusion about an article Honor doesn't like, but I'm open to changing my mind.

It is easier than that. Does the information in the article follow the claimed pattern or not? If not, which of the other claims are true and not available from other sources that came out prior to Hersh's article? Or are you arguing conmen don't rely on this method to create bias that allows unsupported claims to hitch a ride on their credibility?

Set forth the "claimed pattern" using concrete examples of what Rush Limbaugh actually said and then apply it to what Hersh said in his article. It's your burden buddy, otherwise admit that you are full of crap. Further, you have nothing, unless I am mistaken, to show that Hersh's claims are fraudulent like you want everyone to believe. It's too early in the real world to tell. You simply make the naked claim of malfeasance and then try to tie Rush to it in an attempt to solidify your weak nonsense. Also, you assume a con because you don't want to give any chance whatsoever to Hersh's claim that Obama had to get Biden to give up his chance at a second term, a goal of all presidents who want to be on Mt. Rushmore, like where Ms. Pelosi claims Biden belongs.

[honorentheos]

I pointed out what Hersh said earlier.

Are you bothered by my having pointed out Limbaugh used this pattern in his broadcasts? Then ignore it and point out where Hersh reported information that breaks the pattern. You seem interested less in facts than hanging on to any hope of increasing the probabilities Obama threatened Biden with the 25th amendment beyond what the evidence itself can bear.

You forget, councilor, that the burden of proof is on Hersh to support his claim, not for others to hold their breathes until it may prove to be true.

The pattern also seems to have not lost its potency, judging.

[honorentheos]

For those interested in Hersh and his credibility issues since the Obama administration:

https://www.codastory.com/newsletters/s ... rd-stream/

I remember my first, brief meeting with Seymour Hersh in Beirut in 2009. I was based there for the BBC, while he regularly came through the city on his way to Damascus, where he socialized with the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and his family. I remember being taken aback by how close he seemed to the Assads, but starstruck nevertheless. Hersh was a hero, whose dogged, brave, incredibly smart reporting exposed the My Lai massacre by U.S. troops in Vietnam, a number of Pentagon cover-ups and revelations of U.S. torture in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison.

But by the time the Syrian civil war sent shockwaves through the Middle East, Hersh’s relationship with the Assads seemed to affect his journalism. In Syria’s ugly, bloody civil war, he took the dictator’s side, claiming — against all existing evidence — that it was the rebels and not the regime who used sarin gas in chemical attacks. Unlike Hersh’s investigations into America’s chemical warfare in the 1960s, his Syria reporting seemed to be based on his assumption that the U.S. government lies, rather than witnesses or evidence.

In 2012, the New Yorker ended its decades-long relationship with Hersh, refusing to publish a piece about the death of Osama Bin Laden that challenged the official narrative. “We tried and tried, but it just doesn’t check out,” a friend, an editor at the New Yorker who was involved, told me at the time.

A couple of years later, I saw Hersh at a journalism conference in Barcelona. He sounded bitter and disillusioned as he addressed the crowd and there was an awkward moment when he got booed for making a toxic remark about women in journalism. I was surprised — there was never a hint of any sexism in my personal interactions with him.

Later that day, I watched reporters from Russia Today, Sputnik and some Arabic media outlets line up to interview Hersh in the corridor. It looked like he had found his new crowd.

We may never know all the details that led Hersh down this particular path. What led Hersh from being a hero of American accountability journalism to being a darling of dictators and their propaganda channels. It is a mystery to me how exposing the lies of his own government led Hersh to forget that other governments lie too.

But, in some ways, the details of Hersh’s journey don’t matter. What matters are the details of how his now self-published stories travel through the digital information network and help create the global mood music.

Hersh’s story illuminates the extraordinary power that platforms like Substack have when it comes to infecting public opinion with bad information. Tow Center’s Emily Bell believes Substack is particularly problematic because it hosts plenty of credible journalists and is “perceived as a legitimizing platform.”

Substack prides itself on its hands-off approach to content and it has faced some backlash for refusing to tackle the misinformation and hate speech being published on the platform. But Substack mostly flies completely under the radar of any discussion about platform regulation. It shows why current regulatory efforts focused on particular platforms are a whack-a-mole game that aspiring regulators are bound to lose. The damage being done though is permanent.

Objectively, the blowing up of the pipelines continues to be a mystery. Questions about the incident have not been answered. Still, different versions of history have already been written, and millions of minds have already been made up. “By the time the truth comes out, whether corroborated or debunked, there is a good chance no one will care,” says Emily Bell.

Before you despair about the state of the world, here’s the good news: this tale of Seymour Hersh’s Substack is also a reminder of, and testimony to, the power of the journalistic process. For all the millions spent on debunking and combating disinformation, one solution is the good, old-fashioned journalistic process — use multiple sources; attribute quotes whenever possible; and question everything. (emphasis added)

[Kishkumen]

I'd also argue there is a big difference between "this guy is no better than Rush Limbaugh" and "this article is structured exactly like Limbaugh used to do" which is all I see honor saying in this thread. Honors comments have been heavily focused on the structure and delivery of this specific claim, not Hersh's work at large.

I don’t agree anyway. And he called Hersh a conman, which is another intemperate and grossly inaccurate cut.

[Kishkumen]

For those interested in Hersh and his credibility issues since the Obama administration:

https://www.codastory.com/newsletters/s ... rd-stream/

I remember my first, brief meeting with Seymour Hersh in Beirut in 2009. I was based there for the BBC, while he regularly came through the city on his way to Damascus, where he socialized with the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and his family. I remember being taken aback by how close he seemed to the Assads, but starstruck nevertheless. Hersh was a hero, whose dogged, brave, incredibly smart reporting exposed the My Lai massacre by U.S. troops in Vietnam, a number of Pentagon cover-ups and revelations of U.S. torture in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison.

But by the time the Syrian civil war sent shockwaves through the Middle East, Hersh’s relationship with the Assads seemed to affect his journalism. In Syria’s ugly, bloody civil war, he took the dictator’s side, claiming — against all existing evidence — that it was the rebels and not the regime who used sarin gas in chemical attacks. Unlike Hersh’s investigations into America’s chemical warfare in the 1960s, his Syria reporting seemed to be based on his assumption that the U.S. government lies, rather than witnesses or evidence.

In 2012, the New Yorker ended its decades-long relationship with Hersh, refusing to publish a piece about the death of Osama Bin Laden that challenged the official narrative. “We tried and tried, but it just doesn’t check out,” a friend, an editor at the New Yorker who was involved, told me at the time.

A couple of years later, I saw Hersh at a journalism conference in Barcelona. He sounded bitter and disillusioned as he addressed the crowd and there was an awkward moment when he got booed for making a toxic remark about women in journalism. I was surprised — there was never a hint of any sexism in my personal interactions with him.

Later that day, I watched reporters from Russia Today, Sputnik and some Arabic media outlets line up to interview Hersh in the corridor. It looked like he had found his new crowd.

We may never know all the details that led Hersh down this particular path. What led Hersh from being a hero of American accountability journalism to being a darling of dictators and their propaganda channels. It is a mystery to me how exposing the lies of his own government led Hersh to forget that other governments lie too.

But, in some ways, the details of Hersh’s journey don’t matter. What matters are the details of how his now self-published stories travel through the digital information network and help create the global mood music.

Hersh’s story illuminates the extraordinary power that platforms like Substack have when it comes to infecting public opinion with bad information. Tow Center’s Emily Bell believes Substack is particularly problematic because it hosts plenty of credible journalists and is “perceived as a legitimizing platform.”

Substack prides itself on its hands-off approach to content and it has faced some backlash for refusing to tackle the misinformation and hate speech being published on the platform. But Substack mostly flies completely under the radar of any discussion about platform regulation. It shows why current regulatory efforts focused on particular platforms are a whack-a-mole game that aspiring regulators are bound to lose. The damage being done though is permanent.

Objectively, the blowing up of the pipelines continues to be a mystery. Questions about the incident have not been answered. Still, different versions of history have already been written, and millions of minds have already been made up. “By the time the truth comes out, whether corroborated or debunked, there is a good chance no one will care,” says Emily Bell.

Before you despair about the state of the world, here’s the good news: this tale of Seymour Hersh’s Substack is also a reminder of, and testimony to, the power of the journalistic process. For all the millions spent on debunking and combating disinformation, one solution is the good, old-fashioned journalistic process — use multiple sources; attribute quotes whenever possible; and question everything. (emphasis added)

Ah, OK. A story that doesn’t follow its own standards says Hersh did this, that and the other. He’s a misogynist who loves dictators. And it’s right there in black and white!

I am not sure what your point is, honor. Except maybe to win some spat? “I am right about Hersh, dammit!”

I said quite a bit earlier in the thread that he had a spotty record. He is a guy who has done some important work who has credibility issues. Done. Conman? Rush Limbaugh?

No.

[honorentheos]

Kish,

It's true I view the way Hersh presented the article to be composed in a manner consistent with a con, and one Rush Limbaugh made use of in his reporting. I also think that is intentional. So, sure, I think Hersh is effectively and intentionally perpetrating a con in his report.

We can disagree about that and it will go nowhere. But I'm curious: at what point do we stop giving him the benefit of a doubt? A year after his report with zero supporting evidence coming forward? Ten years? Until the next time?

The man is now an outlet for people actively attacking Western Liberal Democracy. I'd say calling him a conman is one of the nicer things he deserves.

[Kishkumen]

Kish,

It's true I view the way Hersh presented the article to be composed in a manner consistent with a con, and one Rush Limbaugh made use of in his reporting. I also think that is intentional. So, sure, I think Hersh is effectively and intentionally perpetrating a con in his report.

We can disagree about that and it will go nowhere. But I'm curious: at what point do we stop giving him the benefit of a doubt? A year after his report with zero supporting evidence coming forward? Ten years? Until the next time?

The man is now an outlet for people actively attacking Western Liberal Democracy. I'd say calling him a conman is one of the nicer things he deserves.

Yeah, I don't agree. He isn't "conning" anyone. He is certainly falling short of the standards of journalism I expect. What is interesting to me is that you are hellbent on making sure we dislike the source of the Substack piece. Kill the messenger, eh? At what point does that seem, well, kind of excessive? Are you going to find a blog from the cousin who doesn't like him next? Honestly, I think spotty record and credibility problems cover the case adequately, but if you are after character assassination in this, count me out. I said what I had to say about his dubious credibility, and I said this claim about the Obama threat was likely untrue. I don't know for certain that it is untrue, but it is probably untrue.

I don't care to argue this further with you. I made all of my points a while ago, and I stand by them. I think we can arrive at more or less the same place without the guilt by association tactics.