Was the Nord Stream 2 Rupture an Accidental Catalyst?

Re:Was the Nord Stream 2 Rupture an Accidental Catalyst? by nl on Monday February 20, 2023 @01:10AM (#34865458)

It's difficult to argue in circumstances where some elements of his story that appear to make it less likely are said to be untrue in order to defend that story.

Notably there doesn't appear to be any reason for him to claim it was a single source when he could equally have claimed he verified it with multiple sources (even if there was only one additional source. It's no less untrue, right?)

I think in these circumstances you can only look at Hersh's record. Since the turn of the millennium it really isn't very good. With the exception of the Abu Ghraib story (which he wasn't alone in breaking) I don't think any of his major stories have turned out to be true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh

(He was also very lucky to avoid publishing forged claims about Kennedy in the late 1990's).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Was the Nord Stream 2 Rupture an Accidental Catalyst? by Lazare on Monday February 20, 2023 @01:30AM (#34865571)

This is a fascinating article: https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/

Hersh always benefited hugely from having a very good editor to keep him disciplined and reign in his enthusiasm.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Was the Nord Stream 2 Rupture an Accidental Catalyst? by nl on Monday February 20, 2023 @05:29AM (#34866879)

The TalkingPointMemo really says it all. He's self publishing or going with minor publications because larger publications do fact checking and the stories aren't checking out.

The Wikipedia article quotes a number of journalists and editors who make similar points.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Was the Nord Stream 2 Rupture an Accidental Catalyst? by brutusborn on Monday February 20, 2023 @01:23AM (#34865530)

It's definitely very murky territory. I don't think he claimed it was all from a single source, he just quoted a single source.

It's interesting you question his record, I thought Hersh's record was excellent; which major stories are you referring to? With the kind of reporting he does, I would have expected many more major mistakes to be made but he seems to make them very rarely.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Was the Nord Stream 2 Rupture an Accidental Catalyst? by nl on Monday February 20, 2023 @01:34AM (#34865598)

> I thought Hersh's record was excellent; which major stories are you referring to?

I linked Wikipedia, but to summarize some of his questionable claims:

* There were plans under consideration in 2006 for a nuclear first strike on Iran.

* Osama bin Laden wasn't killed by US Forces in a raid in Pakistan

* The Syrian gas attack wasn't done by Syrian government forces

* "I don't necessarily buy the story that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11"

* That the Skripal poisoning wasn't done by Russian forces.

Lots of these views have significant backers amongst conspiracy theorists. But unlike some of his other stories (say in the same time frame) there has been very little to no evidence showing he is anything like correct.

Basically, post 2000 the only one of his stories which has turned out to be well supported was Abu Ghraib.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Was the Nord Stream 2 Rupture an Accidental Catalyst? by brutusborn on Monday February 20, 2023 @01:50AM (#34865691)

Thanks for the summary, I read the Wikipedia article but it wasn't clear which stories were incorrect (I guess because there is no evidence either way).

Classified info takes time to be released, so I wonder if the fact that his recent reporting hasn't been confirmed is more a function of freedom of information / declassification timelines than proof that he has dropped the ball.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Was the Nord Stream 2 Rupture an Accidental Catalyst? by nl on Monday February 20, 2023 @05:24AM (#34866848)

I think the 9/11 and Bin Laden death stories are very clearly conspiracy theory fodder because of the amount of unclassified confirmation available.

[ Parent | on HN ]