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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

gulliver

(13,819 posts)

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

Reply to kpete (Original post)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 08:44 AM

Dec 2013

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.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

New Yorker, Washington Post Passed On Seymour Hersh Syria Report [View all] kpete Dec 2013 OP

Pretty obvious, Sy. Your sources weren't reliable Pretzel_Warrior Dec 2013 #1

a problem with the messenger? G_j Dec 2013 #2

It was published by the London Review of Books. A highly respected journal and vetted Luminous Animal Dec 2013 #3

A (single) FORMER New Yorker fact checker frazzled Dec 2013 #5

since we didn't go to war, it's not a bombshell Enrique Dec 2013 #6

LOL Capt. Obvious Dec 2013 #7

+100 nt Mojorabbit Dec 2013 #4

Which is a good reason to ignore Hersh, right? gulliver Dec 2013 #8