New Yorker, Washington Post Passed On Seymour Hersh Syria Report

[kpete]

In an email, Hersh wrote that “there was little interest” for the story at The New Yorker.

....................

Hersh wrote that he went to the Post because of the paper’s reporting on documents provided by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

...............

Hersh also cited the Post’s reporting on a “secret sensor system” that he wrote would have been expected to detect Assad's regime preparing for a chemical attack in the days leading up to it.

It's unclear exactly why the Post decided not to publish the story. Hersh wrote that he was told by email that Executive Editor Marty Baron decided “that the sourcing in the article did not meet the Post's standards.”



MORE:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/08/seymour-hersh-syria-report_n_4409674.html

[Pretzel_Warrior]

1. Pretty obvious, Sy. Your sources weren't reliable

The Post, New Yorker, et al didn't want to be the next 60 Minutes burned by shoddy vetting of sources.

Try Info Wars. They'll publish anything.

[G_j]

2. a problem with the messenger?

[Luminous Animal]

3. It was published by the London Review of Books. A highly respected journal and vetted

by New Yorker fact checkers.

[frazzled]

5. A (single) FORMER New Yorker fact checker

I don't blame the Post or New Yorker for not taking that as sufficient backup for the story. I work as a freelancer in the publishing industry, and I feel fairly certain that submitting something you've said was fact checked by an outside person (apparently also now a freelancer) would not be considered strong enough for these organizations to feel safe in publishing. And it could be that they did not feel they had the ability to further fact-check themselves, especially if it involved sensitive or (unverifiable) classified information.

I'm not saying he's not right (though I'm hardly convinced), but I also can understand why it was not published by either of these outfits. And I don't think there's anything particularly nefarious about it. Aside from the question of sourcing and verification, it's simply not a very topical story ... given the additional fact that we did NOT go to war. It's sort of a negative about a negative. In the end, it's not really a very hot story.

[Enrique]

6. since we didn't go to war, it's not a bombshell

but a story about the government lying is always worth reporting. Big news outlets don't just publish bombshells, they publish important stories.

[Capt. Obvious]

7. LOL

I clicked on this link knowing there would be people trashing Seymore.

I figured you'd be here but reply one - you're quick.

[Mojorabbit]

4. +100 nt

[gulliver]

8. Which is a good reason to ignore Hersh, right?

I'll go with the "2+2=4" interpretation on this one. Getting a "no" vote from the New Yorker and Washington Post means the story is unreliable, not the publications.