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.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
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.