News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on /story/34707305. Parent comment

Re: by boplicity on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @07:56PM (#34718200)
I think I would be very skeptical that this was actually written by Seymour Hersh. This Substack was created today. There's no previous history on it. I can't find any credible evidence that this is actually Seymour Hersh.

If it's not Seymour, it sure is very effective propoganda.

Does anyone see any proof that this is indeed written by the claimed author?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by marianatom on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @08:23PM (#34718440)
The substack was created today, then Russian outlet Sputnik ran the story hours later. Then a hacker news account with pro CCP content submitted this substack.

Why is this rubbish on top of hacker news?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by htrgh on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @08:35PM (#34718548)
I'm surprised at the concerted effort to discredit the story. Even Hersh's Wikipedia page is under attack (look at the history today).

Given that reaction, the story must be true.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by judahmeek on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @09:03PM (#34718802)
If there's a lot of facts that discredit a narrative, then people simply stating those facts are not a part of a "concentrated effort".

Your contrarian logic is going to take you down a very sorrowful & dimly lit path in life.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by jkalpt on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @09:18PM (#34718924)
"CCP content", "rubbish" are facts? "sorrowful & dimly lit path", really? Thanks for the life advice, preacher.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by dang on Thursday February 09, 2023 @01:08AM (#34720312)
Please don't cross into personal attack, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by jjoonathan on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @09:26PM (#34718996)
Nice try, green account.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by htrgh on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @08:32PM (#34718528)
Taibbi, who is active on Substack, confirms using his verified Twitter account:

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1623352901111517185

Reuters reported on it, the White House bothered to refute the story. It is Hersh.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by bandyaboot on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @08:45PM (#34718664)
Have you seen the White House refutation somewhere other than in the piece which is the subject of the questioning you’re responding to? If not, that’s a null point.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by klrls on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @08:51PM (#34718705)
Yes, and it is trivial to find:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/white-house-says-blog-post-...

Are people try to derail this story by flooding the submission with innocent questions?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by jjoonathan on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @09:28PM (#34719013)
No, but the green accounts are sure out in force to pump it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by bandyaboot on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @08:58PM (#34718763)
No. Question asked and answered. Thanks.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by justinclift on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @10:40PM (#34719481)
There are quite a few articles popping up saying the same thing from various "news" sources, however they don't appear to be including any links to the supposed "White house" source they're talking about.

eg they could very well be propaganda themselves

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by joenot443 on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @10:05PM (#34719262)
Considering the NY Post, a paper Hersh has a personal relationship with, has already written about this blogpost, I’d be really surprised if it was some kind of impersonation.

Hersh is an online individual like the rest of us, I’m quite sure he’d be aware of papers all over the world reporting on something he hadn’t written.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by dang on Thursday February 09, 2023 @01:09AM (#34720318)
If it weren't written by Hersh we'd have found out very quickly. By now it's surely clear that it was.
[ Parent | on HN ]