How can you call his sources crank without knowing who they are yourself?
Easy - they reported things that don't fit into this person's worldview.
Because if the best you can do as a whistleblower is to give anonymous info to an independent reporter who won't verify it, you're probably on the crank side of things.
Re:
by asimpletune on Thursday February 09, 2023 @06:52AM
(#34722608)
I don’t think he’s calling him a crank, anymore than he’s talking about a specific broken clock being right twice a day. It’s just hypothetical to demonstrate a point. If he were a crank journalist, being accidentally right twice could still make him a journalistic legend. Therefore, we can’t trust simply because he’s famous, because a broken clock is right twice a day.
Re:
by jonstewart on Thursday February 09, 2023 @08:41AM
(#34723708)
This piece posits a “crank theory” of Seymour Hersh:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/05/seymour-hershs-u...
You should apply at least the same level of skepticism to sources attacking Seymour Hersh as you do to his writing, because there are plenty of powerful people trying to hide the truth and discredit journalists who report it.
Seriously. The article's author couldn't think of any reason why they might want to stage the bin Laden assassination? I can think of a bunch of reasons just off the top of my head. Doesn't make the story true, but the author is conspicuously unimaginative.
I think this case is special in that the source would get the Snowden treatment if the name leaks.
If you publish all at once, others can go and verify the details. The source is protected.
If you verify pre-publication, e.g., go to the diving school in Florida and ask too many questions, you (and the source) will be under surveillance in no time.
But a broken clock is right twice a day and a bad journalist can break two big stories in a career of publishing lies.