Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jesus Malverde

(10,274 posts)
Mon May 11, 2015, 08:22 PM May 2015

'ATTACK THE MESSENGER' — Seymour Hersh defends his blockbuster bin Laden story

Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh is pushing back against critics of his controversial story claiming the White House lied about key details of the Osama bin Laden raid.

Soon after the story was published in the London Review of Books on Sunday night, former CIA officials and national-security experts slammed Hersh's reporting, with CNN's Peter Bergen calling the piece "a farrago of nonsense."

And the White House blasted the story as full of inaccuracies and "baseless."

When reached at home by Business Insider on Monday afternoon, Hersh addressed some of the criticisms of his reporting, which have centered around his reliance on anonymous sources and an apparent lack of documentary evidence for his claims.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/seymour-hersh-defends-his-blockbuster-bin-laden-story-2015-5#ixzz3ZsZVFioz

14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
'ATTACK THE MESSENGER' — Seymour Hersh defends his blockbuster bin Laden story (Original Post) Jesus Malverde May 2015 OP
When "the messenger" ... NanceGreggs May 2015 #1
He's not going to give away all his sources...he just wants that one to verify. KoKo May 2015 #4
pretty easy to clear this up...show the video imnew May 2015 #7
Proving Hersh wrong would seem to an easy thing to do gratuitous May 2015 #13
Did you read the story? It wasn't anonymous sources he talked to - Hestia May 2015 #11
A source that cannot ... NanceGreggs May 2015 #12
Attack the messenger? He doesn't have to reveal his anonymous sources and we do not Thinkingabout May 2015 #2
attack his evidence, artack his sources but don't attack him nt arely staircase May 2015 #3
Why not? OilemFirchen May 2015 #8
when his main (Pakistani) source is all he has as evidence to back up his claims bigtree May 2015 #5
I haven't seen people attacking the messenger to refute the story Renew Deal May 2015 #6
In retrospect, I'll give Sy credit where it's due. OilemFirchen May 2015 #9
Pitiful alcibiades_mystery May 2015 #10
Hersh is just whining that people are making substantive geek tragedy May 2015 #14

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
1. When "the messenger" ...
Mon May 11, 2015, 08:31 PM
May 2015

... is allegedly relying on one unidentified anonymous source, while weaving a tale full of inconsistencies and contradictions, the "messenger" becomes suspect.

"An anonymous source has stated" is right up there with "some people are saying". I give equal credence to both.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
4. He's not going to give away all his sources...he just wants that one to verify.
Mon May 11, 2015, 08:36 PM
May 2015

How many WaPo and NYT and Other "Newspapers of Record" use "Unidentified Sources in their reporting these days? How often are THEY QUESTIONED? They aren't ....yet the story is taken as truth depending on which side one is on.



gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
13. Proving Hersh wrong would seem to an easy thing to do
Mon May 11, 2015, 11:09 PM
May 2015

Instead, we get a generic statement about "inconsistencies" and "baseless accusations" that never quite get to the substance. I've seen this movie before, and while the preliminary ending differs from time to time (viz. Woodward and Bernstein versus Gary Webb), eventually the truth seeps out.

 

Hestia

(3,818 posts)
11. Did you read the story? It wasn't anonymous sources he talked to -
Mon May 11, 2015, 10:16 PM
May 2015
The most blatant lie was that Pakistan’s two most senior military leaders – General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, chief of the army staff, and General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, director general of the ISI – were never informed of the US mission. This remains the White House position despite an array of reports that have raised questions, including one by Carlotta Gall in the New York Times Magazine of 19 March 2014. Gall, who spent 12 years as the Times correspondent in Afghanistan, wrote that she’d been told by a ‘Pakistani official’ that Pasha had known before the raid that bin Laden was in Abbottabad. The story was denied by US and Pakistani officials, and went no further. In his book Pakistan: Before and after Osama (2012), Imtiaz Gul, executive director of the Centre for Research and Security Studies, a think tank in Islamabad, wrote that he’d spoken to four undercover intelligence officers who – reflecting a widely held local view – asserted that the Pakistani military must have had knowledge of the operation. The issue was raised again in February, when a retired general, Asad Durrani, who was head of the ISI in the early 1990s, told an al-Jazeera interviewer that it was ‘quite possible’ that the senior officers of the ISI did not know where bin Laden had been hiding, ‘but it was more probable that they did [know]. And the idea was that, at the right time, his location would be revealed. And the right time would have been when you can get the necessary quid pro quo – if you have someone like Osama bin Laden, you are not going to simply hand him over to the United States.’


The major US source for the account that follows is a retired senior intelligence official who was knowledgeable about the initial intelligence about bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad. He also was privy to many aspects of the Seals’ training for the raid, and to the various after-action reports. Two other US sources, who had access to corroborating information, have been longtime consultants to the Special Operations Command. I also received information from inside Pakistan about widespread dismay among the senior ISI and military leadership – echoed later by Durrani – over Obama’s decision to go public immediately with news of bin Laden’s death. The White House did not respond to requests for comment.


http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
12. A source that cannot ...
Mon May 11, 2015, 10:51 PM
May 2015

... or will not agree to be identified is an "anonymous source".

Journalism 101.

And, while we're at it, Common Sense 101.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
2. Attack the messenger? He doesn't have to reveal his anonymous sources and we do not
Mon May 11, 2015, 08:33 PM
May 2015

Have to believe him. There has been some who wants take the credit, bottom line bin Laden is gone.

bigtree

(85,986 posts)
5. when his main (Pakistani) source is all he has as evidence to back up his claims
Mon May 11, 2015, 08:46 PM
May 2015

...criticism of that source is just as valid a response as his defense of the man's credibility.

OilemFirchen

(7,143 posts)
9. In retrospect, I'll give Sy credit where it's due.
Mon May 11, 2015, 09:59 PM
May 2015

Dude's makin' some coin off this one.

Good for him, I guess.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
14. Hersh is just whining that people are making substantive
Mon May 11, 2015, 11:30 PM
May 2015

critiques of his nutty gossip piece.

Relying solely on anonymous nobodies and retired ISI spooks is not journalism. It's stenography for the loonosphere.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»'ATTACK THE MESSENGER' — ...