NYMetro reports on Sy Hersh's Loose Relationship With the Literal Truth
(Just Not in Print)
Since the Abu Ghraib story broke eleven months ago, The New Yorker’s national-security correspondent, Seymour Hersh, has followed it up with a series of spectacular scoops. Videotape of young boys being raped at Abu Ghraib. Evidence that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi may be a “composite figure” and a propaganda creation of either Iraq’s Baathist insurgency or the U.S. government. The active involvement of Karl Rove and the president in “prisoner-interrogation issues.” The mysterious disappearance of $1 billion, in cash, in Iraq. A threat by the administration to a TV network to cut off access to briefings in retaliation for asking Laura Bush “a very tough question about abortion.” The Iraqi insurgency’s access to short-range FROG missiles that “can do grievous damage to American troops.” The murder, by an American platoon, of 36 Iraqi guards.
Not one of these exclusives appeared in the pages of The New Yorker, however. Instead, Hersh delivered them in speeches on college campuses and in front of organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and on public-radio shows like “Democracy Now!” In most cases, Hersh attaches a caveat—such as “I’m just talking now, I’m not writing”—before unloading one of his blockbusters, which can send bloggers and reporters scurrying for confirmation.
Every writer understands that there is a gap between the print persona and the actual self, but Hersh subscribes to a bright-line test, a wider chasm than is usually acknowledged, particularly in today’s multimedia age.
There are two Hershes, really. Seymour M. is the byline. He navigates readers through the byzantine world of America’s overlapping national-security bureaucracies, and his stories form what Hersh has taken to calling an “alternative history” of the Bush administration since September 11, 2001.
Then there’s Sy. He’s the public speaker, the pundit. On the podium, Sy is willing to tell a story that’s not quite right, in order to convey a Larger Truth. “Sometimes I change events, dates, and places in a certain way to protect people,” Hersh told me. “I can’t fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say.”
Everyone should remember this the next time they hear about Sy Hersh making some rediculous claim
Joe Gandelman commented Then WHY should anyone believe Sy Hersh anymore? If he wanted to protect his sources he could simply say he has to leave some details out. Mr. Hersh: TMV is not one iota as famous as you are, nor has he won any awards (and probably won't) but he knows journalistic ethics. If you had said this in a journalism class the professor would have jumped down your throat.
And what about those who invited you to speak or hired you? Did they think for one second that you were going to fudge the truth — or that you thought you had a right to do so? I suspect they believed every word you said. Who can do that in the future?
pennywit commented When a crusading journalist lies on the one hand, but insists that he is telling the truth elsewhere, he demonstrates that he has no capacity to transmit truth to his audience. In other words, he demonstrates that he has no credibility.
And without his credibility, the crusading journalist is a mere partisan hack, worthy of no more attention than one would ordinarily give the village lunatic standing on the street corner, a shiny hat on his head, and his lunacy displayed on sign after incomprehensible sign and in his voluminous rantings as he shakes his fist at the sky.
In other words, trust nothing that Seymour Hersh says unless he produces the pictures and documentation that support his words, for he has admitted his betrayal of the public trust.
John Hawkins commented Seymour Hersh regularly engages in sloppy, Enquirer-style journalism that's impossible to be independently verifiable, yet he's a mainstream media rock star. If you're looking for reasons not to trust the MSM, Hersh is as good as any...
John Cole commented I propose we call this Eason Jordan Syndrome- when a titled figure shows a willingness to informally pass off as fact things he/she would never consider stating officially or on record, because, of course, they aren't facts at all. Just vicious lies.
Pejman Yousefzadeh commented I'm sorry, but can we really take seriously a person who makes so frank a confession? Amazingly, at the end of the article, the lies are rationalized. I suppose one should envy those who have the talent to make gold out of the disreputable practice of lying for effect. But readers will forgive me if I somehow can't bring myself to envy anyone who would defend Seymour Hersh's rhetorical flights of fancy. And ask yourself: How long before Hershe begins to think that "little white lies" can be told in print too?
Jonah Goldberg commented Maybe Al Franken should reissue his book with a new foreward?
No comments:
Post a Comment