Comments on: Seymour ‘Cassandra’ Hersh, 4 Months Ahead of NYT

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:41:00 +0000

↑.

By: Rachel Sklar

Rachel Sklar — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:07:18 +0000

Hi, it’s Rachel Sklar just responding to these comments. We focused on the NYT because they broke the story. An email to Hersh was not answered, but the Daily Beast spoke with him and we both quoted from and linked to that piece. The use of the word “scoop” was not applied to the Hersh talk at the University of Minnesota. We went beyond “bothering to wonder why” and asked David Remnick, including his answers on the matter at length. With respect to crediting, we asked the NYT and printed the full response. But making statements in a public forum, like giving a speech or being a commentator on television, means something is entered into the public record, and is part of the narrative. As such we thought it was worth examining, and asking for answers about the process from those in a position to know.

By: howardweaver

howardweaver — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:30:54 +0000

The question isn’t why people ignore Sy Hersch. It’s why a self-styled media blog would ignore facts.

Hersch said the CIA had been “finding people on a list and executing them and leaving.” Is that true? Do you have any idea whether it’s true? No, you don’t. So how can you credit it as a scoop? Scoop? It’s not even a story.

As skeptic notes above, Hersch himself hasn’t even reported it; he just asserted it. The New Yorker ran some pretty tough Hersch reporting, but hasn’t run this. Did you bother to wonder why?

Journalism requires care, precision, facts and confirmations. Without that, it’s just rumor; I for one prefer my news reported without unsubstantiated rumor.

If you want people to take your criticism and coverage seriously, please apply some critical thinking — before you publish.
\-\/\/

By: Skeptic

Skeptic — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 00:46:19 +0000

The question is why did Mediaite omit mention that Hersh was four months ahead of The Times, The Journal, The Post and everyone else in the so-called “mainstream media?” All three papers ran stories on the CIA-Cheney topic over the weekend, to one degree or another.

Why just pick The Times to throw into the crosshairs?

Also, go back and read the entire Hersh-Minnpost story you linked to. He said a lot more than what The Times (or any other outlet) printed about the topic — and he hasn’t written a word of it yet.

In theory, The Times is AHEAD of Hersh on this story. Even the New Yorker admits there’s a big difference between talking about a story and actually printing it. Assuming this is true, score one for The Times.

I’m not talking down about Hersh here, or saying The Times is better. In fact, I’m making no such judgment at all. I’m just saying, why don’t we hold the gripe of this post to the same standard of the publication for which Hersh writes?

I think the real loser here is Mediaite for trying throw itself onto the chorus of small-time blogs trying to throw stones at the throne of real journalists. You know, the ones to whom a source isn’t just a hyperlink you put between words on your blog. Hell, Hersh, the topic of this post, wasn’t even interviewed by Mediaite for this.