Not P but Disinformation ?

Sun Jul 30 15:08:36 CDT 2017

There have seldom, perhaps, never, been the number of sources speaking to
investigate reporters all over the world since the new Pustule-in-Chief was
inaugurated. How come I'm the only 'leftie' around here who heard PLENTY
against the Syria bombing---that "moment of accord" is what passes for CNN
consensus; who wants to defend them or that? Not I, as Samuel Beckett is
always saying...

I suggest that your argument is self-refuting if you go back to the true
line, "it's easy to get multiple sources to counter White House positions".
As even Jochen said, many of Pres Trump's advisors and some other
military---and too many of his advisors are military, of course--advised
him against it. HERSH would have had more than those nine (9) Baron had for
the Flynn piece if he could have gotten them. But he couldn't, because his
reporting is wrong.

and my recent history of Hersh goes back before this recent piece, which
has been rendered into limbo---and is still being scorched
regular---imagine what that editor and the magazine people are hearing.

On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Laura <laurakelber at gmail.com> wrote:

> Given the harsh treatment of whistleblowers during the Obama
> administration, one could imagine that it's getting harder to find sources
> willing to speak up against the official narrative. While the White House,
> the intelligence community and the mainstream media were, with some
> exceptions, more or less on the same page, that's not the case with the
> Pustule-in-Chief in charge. There's a real bifurcation of interests in
> regards to immigration policy, Russia policy, etc. , And it's easy to get
> multiple sources to counter White House positions. The bombing of Syria was
> an exceptional moment of accord. It's surprising that Hersch found even one
> source willing to talk to him.
>
> *Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID*
>
>
> Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> He was NEVER ignored. He was---and still is---the legendary Sy Hersh, who
> helped many of today's top investigative reporters---and the editors who
> use their work--be as
> relentless in getting to the truth(s) as they want to be and are.
>
> The New Yorker, who had first rights to Hersh's work not long ago and, if
> you have been a steady reader, loved his and similar reporting, going back
> to Hershey's *Hiroshima* and Jonathon Schell's *The Fate of the Earth* (different
> than Hersh's work but simpatico) and HERSH'S WORK in The New Yorker since
> his legend-making Vietnam and Cambodia reporting--and others I can't
> remember---and I'm not gonna look up. The New Yorker, legendarily among the
> finest edited and fact-checked magazines ever,  stopped taking these recent
> pieces from Hersh---and refuse to give a reason. As kind-hearted Paul
> Mackin suggests, Remnick is NOT going to diss him publicly, evidently
> kindness in his public heart too.....but, the reporting did not hold up,
> all know, and they could not publish it---out of reputational
> self-interest, if for no other reason.
>
> When it went next to the Washington Post, they too turned it down...Marty
> Baron, who will perhaps go down in journalistic history as even a better
> managing editor and cultivator
> of great reporters than Ben Bradlee,---who would have gone to jail happily
> for Sy in the old days,  quietly said, "we had trouble with the
> sourcing".......scores of readers and fact- checkers of Hersh's recent
> reporting say: mostly dicey single-sourcing. Dicey in that he, Hersh, heard
> from unreliable narrators of supposed 'facts"....when Seymour  heard the
> horrible truths of My Lai and re Cambodia and Nixon--Kissinger's secrets,
> just as examples, he was getting *truth.*....now, few believe he
> is......he cannot get the journalistic minimums of two independent sources
> anymore and no one can confirm independently much of what he reports.....
> ASIDE, I love how Marty Baron had the fact that they had NINE (9) sources
> for their story that brought down Gen Flynn put RIGHT INTO the first lines
> of the story....THAT'S how right he wanted to be.......then SY went to the
> very left and European and terrif mag,---look up David Bromwich on Pres
> Trump---THE LONDON REVIEW OF BOOKS, known for more lax fact-checking, no
> history and resources BECAUSE THEY PUBLISH LITTLE INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING
> and got his last before the current one published...then they would not
> take the latest because all of the mags are now getting assailed re Hersh
> and his lack of verifiable sourcing and his mistakes, his
> steadily-accummulating  mistakes.
>     Now the German mag which has published the last---an old editor friend
> of Hersh's-- is suffering the reputational l loss and ....
>
> we will see where Sy Hersh goes next...
>
> As he recently said to another reporter asking him questions about
> discrepancies in his reporting and his experts' "I just write it and move
> on". So we will see where he goes next, I repeat.
>
> He has not been a great reporter recently, in fact is a bad one who
> effectively cannot get hired by the kind of places who PAID HIM BIG MONEY
> NOT LONG AGO. These recent years, ANY of his major outlets would have loved
> ANY of his true scoops---circulation and reputation skyrocket---if they
> were true.
>
> Maybe he will recover himself, who knows, He was a great reporter
> once--and he is still courageously trying hard to get new stories, it
> seems.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 12:36 PM, da kid <peterock86 at live.com> wrote:
>
>> Okay I see yeah I agree there. I know he had to go to some big right wing
>> German publication to get his story printed. So yeah I think it is messed
>> you or at least odd that he was completely ignored.
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Thomas Eckhardt <thomas.eckhardt at uni-bonn.de>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 30, 2017 7:36:34 AM
>> *To:* da kid; Allan Balliett; Pynchon-l
>> *Subject:* Re: Not P but Disinformation ?
>>
>> Am 29.07.2017 um 19:40 schrieb da kid:
>> >     I don't know about that Seynour Hersch Syria story. He has
>> > apparently done great work in the past but his report is based off of
>> > one single source that he says is a military adviser. His story is
>> > contradicted by all the UN chemical weapons inspector's reports too.
>> > Although, again on RT, I read that the UN inspector's did not follow
>> > the normal protocol and their escort was a rebel sympathizer or
>> > something. So I don't know what to believe. Hersch's story seems less
>> > reliable though
>> This is not the point. Doubt him, debate him, debunk him. But to
>> basically suppress his voice and dismiss his claims out of hand is
>> disgraceful. The man is the most renowned investigative journalist in
>> the US.
>>
>> As for the debating, only a short remark: RT is obviously referring to
>> the CW incident in Ghouta in 2013. After the latest serious incident,
>> the UN inspectors visited neither Idlib/Khan Sheikoun nor the Syrian
>> airforce base at Sheyrat.
>>
>> Here is the OPCW report:
>>
>> https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/Fact_Finding_Mission/s-
>> 1510-2017_e_.pdf
>>
>> The OPCW is an immensely important institution whose reports may decide
>> about war and peace. So this is interesting:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/world/to-ousted-boss-arms-
>> watchdog-was-seen-as-an-obstacle-in-iraq.html
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20170730/99e99d49/attachment.html>