Hugh Hewitt (supporter of plagiarist Ben Domenech who had his recent book edited by Domenech) decided that since he didn’t like what Sy Hersh was reporting… he’d just say Hersh made it up
Where’s that fairy dust and how can I get me some?
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
How Cons Deal With Information They Don’t Like
April 11th, 2006
43 Comments
Spew Nitwit and Glennuendo Reynolds are skilled hucksters who ply
their barker trade with slick, selective perception.
They like controling the environment by carefully picking the narrow
arguments that pander to their preconceived conclusions, then shutting
off debate as though it has ended with their latest, and cheapest shot.
They smell of fish while disclaiming any connection to the sea of lies
in this admin.
Projection: they make sh*t up, so everybody else must make sh*t up too.
Uhh, Sy Hersh has a very bad track record. he has been throroughly discredited by both sides of the political aisle and if you would bother to dig you would finfd a disturbing pattern of anti Israel bias. Hersh is not reliable.
Dugger
“Hersh is not reliable.”
Um, how reliable/right has the Bush administration been?
I’d like to see evidence of his long track record of debunkitude. I’ve never heard that, doesn’t mean it’s not true, but with someone that big, it usually becomes quite well known if he has made shit up in the past.
excellent post dugger…..
More of Ollie’s yellow journalism debunked..
mjb
A quick sampling.
“This was disputed, just as virtually everything Hersh writes is disputed. It’s become a ritual: Hersh publishes an eye-popping story, and then the complaints pour in. Sources say they weren’t quoted properly. Others claim Hersh takes material out of context and ignores facts that don’t comport with the point he wants to make. According to a Vanity Fair profile of Hersh, A. M. Rosenthal, the former executive editor of the New York Times (where Hersh worked in the 1970s), once heard him “practically blackmailing” a person he was supposed to be interviewing.
Hersh has admitted mistakes in the past. His 1991 book The Samson Option, which said the Israelis owned nuclear missiles, relied for much of its information on a man Hersh now admits “lies like people breathe.” In an interview three years ago with The Progressive, Hersh said, “If the standard for being fired was being wrong on a story, I would have been fired long ago.”
His methods came under severe criticism following the publication of his 1997 bestseller The Dark Side of Camelot and its negative portrayal of John F. Kennedy. While conducting his research, Hersh came across what looked like his biggest scoop since My Lai: a cache of unknown JFK documents offering apparent proof of an affair with Marilyn Monroe, among dozens of other tantalizing factoids. Hersh gained access to them through Lawrence X. Cusack, a man who claimed his father was a lawyer for Kennedy. The papers eventually were shown to be forgeries-Cusack is now in prison-but Hersh refused for months to disbelieve them, coming up with desperate rationalizations for skeptics who wondered why documents containing ZIP codes were dated before ZIP codes even existed”
Theres more. Recently gen Myers said he was wrong. hersh described a mission whrein 16 AC-130H gunships took part. I can tell you for a fact that that was wrong.
Hey Kitty Kelly keeps getting published.. As long as Hersh zeros in on Repubs, he will get published.
Dugger
How cons deal with information they don t like: They ask for a minimum of corroboration.
How the left deals with information they don t like: How reliable/right has the Bush administration been?
::chuckle::
Let’s apply more Dukker logic:
You have failed to document one Hersh lie. Hersh is an honorable man, I for one trust his motives. You all just have this unreasoning hate and distrust for the man. Your anti-Hersh hatred clouds your very judgement.
Dukkerism: it’s nice up here in the clouds.
I like it when people call truth tellers “Bush haters”.
Everything they said about Iraq was wrong. Everything. They’ve undermined confidence in the US worldwide. They’ve undermined American confidence in their own government, which, despite what you may think, was decent before the GOP took over everything. There’s tens of thousands dead because of their imperial visions and foreign adventures.
I’ll take Sy Hersch over that vast sea of lies and corruption any freakin’ day, you scumbag. At least Hersch talks to sources, and doesn’t just rimjob admin officials like Woodward does nowadays. Until you show me facts in this story that prove Hersch is full of it, and I’m looking for them myself, as well, thanks, you should cram a sock in it. It’s about the LIES. Bush is a liar. He’s lied repeatedly. Cheney: Liar. Documented liar. Name almost anyone in this admin, liars. Not a cheap smear tactic, a truthful assessment of people who LIE. M-w.com:
liar
One entry found for liar.
Main Entry: li·ar
Pronunciation: ‘lI(-&)r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogere, from lEogan to lie — more at LIE
: one that tells lies
What’s the confusion? Where’s the smear?
and if you say “Give me proof!”, give me a break. Fnd it yourself. We’re talking about the most famous dude on the stinking planet. His lies are well freaking documented.
I remember a few years ago when Seymour Hersh dismantled almost every single justification the Bush administration was using to propel us into the Iraq war. BEFORE THE WAR STARTED. Almost everything he said in those articles has turned out to be true.
Standing by a government that will do and say just about anything to get us into a war for god knows what reasons is just plain stupid. Maybe he goes overboard sometimes, but I have more trust in Seymour Hersh than a group of megalo-maniacs who think they can change the world as if it’s a chess board.
“As long as Hersh zeros in on Repubs, he will get published. ”
And as long as Ed Klein, John O’Neill, Coulter, Hannity, Horowitz, Limbaugh, the FBI agent who lied about the Clinton White House, etc… zero in on Dems, they will get published. Unlike Klein, none of these people have ever added anything to the public record which was honorable.
Mitter,
And notice I didn’t say he was a liar.
Liar is the cheap smear tactic that progressive Bush haters are using against the President. I can’t read hersh’s mind.
Dugger, A Paragon of Virtue
Dukker, how can you attack his credibility if you can’t document one lie? It must be your Hersh-hatred talking.
one more thing: Typical winger tactic…attack the messenger. Scumbag.
First off, I didn’t say what Hersh reported was 100% accurate, though what the Washington Post printed seems to back him up, long time readers will remember me being upset with Hersh for going on about more stuff to be found in Abu Ghraib without him backing it up. That said, Hewitt didn’t say that Hersh might have had bad sources, or that Hersh just printed information from anonymous sources – no, he said he made it all up like he was a fiction writer.
That’s funny, where had I seen a reference to the Samson option recently? Was that a differnt Samson option I wonder?
Also, Notice Dukker can’t say Hersh is a liar.
dugger,
let’s see link or cite.
Has anyone mentioned the 60% disapproval? I would call your attention to that fact that Bush is at 60% disapproval, but I’m not sure of someone’s already beaten me to the punch by mentioning that 60% of the country disapproves of Bush’s performance as president. By 60% disapproval, I mean to say that three-fifths of our great nation has an opinion on George W. Bush’s presidency. And further, that that opinion is negative.
So, to sum up: 60% DISAPPROVAL, BITCHES!
What passes for liberal argumentation:
Where’s the link or citation that proves the writer who used no link or citation wrong?
At least Hersch {claims that he} talks to sources.
You’re a scumbag!
BITCHES!
Nothing like well thought out arguing points to persuade me that I am wrong…
one more thing: Typical winger tactic& attack the messenger. Scumbag.
Whining about attacking the messenger while calling (whoever it is you’re talking to) a ’scumbag.’
Very mature of you.
Sy Hersch’s track record with the truth is spottier than a leopard. Whether or not he lies with intent in his writing (he openly admits to lying when he gives speeches) is debatable, but even Hersch has said, “If the standard for being fired was being wrong on a story, I would have been fired long ago.”
At best he’s an extremely sloppy and irresponsible journalist that lies to sources and doesn’t bother confirming others. At worst, he flat out makes things up. It’s not that far out of bounds for Hewitt to say what he did.
Now Newt Gingrich has joined the America-haters in stating publicly that the US should pull out of Iraq.
http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060411/NEWS/604110311/1001
mjb,
No offense, I don’t really care whether you believe or not. Plenty of sources for you to look it up. If your mind is open you will look it up and form your own judgements.
And the difference is, Hersh gets published and discussed in big mainstream media (which I understand is biased, but do you?).
mitter, You would like it to be simple. I am alleging that Hersh is unrelaible and that others have so stated. I question his judgment – not his motivation. You could, were you wiser, take the same line against Bush instead of the cheap, lazy ‘lie’ tack.
See the difference?
Dugger, helping progressives sort out complex stuff since 1969.
This smells like another right wing echo chamber distortion whirlpool where a blog or rush told them Hersch is unreliable so they repeat it. Show us!
mjb,
On media. More than a feeling. I did a quantitative study. But that study asserts my findings predicated on my assumptions. As I have always said, at onset, you and I would disagree about what constitutes bias. And no offense again, but I doubt there are facts that indicate bias by the MSM (my side or yours) – they would have to be facts that support a judgment of bias.
On Hersh, just cut and paste the quote in the search bar if thats what you want. I did a quick Google just to show you there’s a lot out there on Hersh. Don’t try to pretend that a quick Google makes a conclusive case – you have to decide that for yourself. I did. I know from personal experince he was 100% wrong on the AC-130s (which he belatedly admitted) and had read much more.
Dugger, My telling you or giving you Dugger-select sources won’t convince. An open mind will.
Dugger,
Sorry, you used quotes so you got it from somewhere. It’d be helpful if you showed me where you got it. Or you can pull a pedro and not really address it anymore once you clouded the issue enough.
one more thing,
“mainstream media (which I understand is biased, but do you?)”
I actually understand and can point to facts which meet objective standards which show how the msm is biased, you have nothing but a feeling. You know that, but I don’t want to have this argument again.
I see.
Some studies are just…how did that go?….ah, yes, “reflecting ideals and beliefs.” Others seem to be more reliable.
How does that work, exactly?
Dugger’s open mind tells him that 60% is possessed by Bush Derangement Syndrome, and that problems in the war effort are caused by THE MEDIUH and LIBRULS! Never change, Duggz!
Hey, it’s from the National Review? Which was it plagiarized from, an old P.J. O’Rourke column or Ben Domenech’s college newspaper?
“Don t try to pretend that a quick Google makes a conclusive case – you have to decide that for yourself. I did.”
Keep following that gut Dugger. Follow the Gut.
Because as we all know, making mistakes and NOT admitting to them is the hallmark of conservative leadership and integrity.
Here’s the article that Dugger cites above as evidence that Hersh is a serial fabricator or, at least, can’t be trusted. It’s classic NR hack work:
http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/miller200405171342.asp
It’s strongest argument that Hersh can’t be trusted? Apparently he has admitted that he’s made mistakes in the past.
Dugger,
That was quite incoherent. Are you saying that we won’t agree b/c you did a study which started from a premise we won’t agree upon? Or something? I’m lost. If you don’t read eriposte on this matter, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Moving on.
And sorry to offend you with a request for a link. My bad. But since it’s from NR, would I be too cynical to think that maybe you didn’t want it revealed at least initially that your source was a winger source, rather than something more respectable? Nah, I’m just too cynical.
You did? Where? Here?
“Asserts my findings predicated on my assumptions” is a rather neutral statement. Any study is going to be “predicated on assumptions” which will be spelled out in the study’s methodology.
Reflecting ideals and beliefs doesn’t have quite the same connotation, does it? In this phrasing, the “ideals and beliefs” seem to come first, before the findings.
Somebody’s off. Ain’t me.
mjb,
Its about two years old (maybe a little more) and has not been updated to reflect thing like Howell Raines having left the NYT which would/did make them a little less liberal. Maybe when I get it updated but I again say we would not agree on what constitutes bias. I say CNN, for instance, is moderately liberal. Most progressives think they are right of center. Too much of a gap.
Dugger
Quaker,
You are off today. I just said my own study, which is more than a feeling, was reflective of my own biases.
mjb,
No its coherent, if you pay attention. Re the MSM, you said that I had, in effect, nothing but a feeling. I said no, I had done a study – a quantitative study – hence, more than a feeling. And that the value of that study in an argument/discussion like this is limited because we would not agree on the fundamental premise of what constitues bias.
You didn’t offend me at all. I have snippets of time to post and do quick Googles and don’t save my work – when its part of an ongoing discussion. (one of the reasons that my typing is so crappy). My opinion is that if you want to do an honest assesment of the reliability of Hersh, as opposed to having your own opinions and biases reinforced, you will find he’s (regarded as) unreliable. I tried to show that people of opposite-my- political-persuasion think so – to make a better case.
Dugger
I figured you were making a snide remark like “we all have studies, they’re meaningless”. But if you really have a study, share it. Maybe we’ll agree on your standard of bias. There’s always a chance.
“I just said my own study, which is more than a feeling, was reflective of my own biases.”
So it holds that this must be true of all studies of media bias, natch.
In general, what is your standard, what makes something liberal?
Gosh, Oliver, it sure is a good thing you don’t leap to conclusions like those demented reight wing bloggers, isn’t it?
It would be nice if you checked your sources once in while.
You quote a blog that asserts Hugh Hewitt said Sy Hersh fabricated his New Yorker story. The assertion from the first draft blog is hearsay without a source, but by your standards say, LET S RUN WITH IT!
Makes some sense, since this is exactly what Hewitt believes Hersh may have done!
Oliver, words mean things. Hewitt said Hersh “could have” fabricated his story, and he backs it up with some historical, anecdotal fact.
Which is far, far more than you have done.
Here s the Hardball transcript link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12268709/
Here s the text:
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the far more troubling question about Sy Hersh s piece in The New Yorker, somewhat parallel to the piece in
I think it was in The Washington Post yesterday that we re developing a strike option for Iran, including the nuclear.
HEWITT: It was very interesting. Seymour Hersh gets it right about 50 percent of the time. I did not hear a single name. He could have completely fabricated that.
MATTHEWS: Why did he make it up?
HEWITT: Because it s a heck of a story. It sells a lot of magazines.
MATTHEWS: Sy Hersh is a credible reporter.
HEWITT: Half the time he gets it right. Half the time he goes on to stuff that will never see the light of day. And when you asked him you pressed him, who is the name here? And he said, Well, George W. Bush. Give me one name and I ll believe it, Chris. And until I get one name in the Pentagon, I m not going to.
Hewitt criticizes Hersh for running stories with ZERO CREDIBLE SOURCES. You’ve followed Hersh s lead by citing a report with NO CREDIBLE SOURCE to back it up, as a criticism of Hewitt.
Oliver, you as full of crap as you are transparent.
This explains much.
quaker,
Yeah. You’re off. You are going overboard on minutiae. You may have some point but I don’t know what it is. Mine was that I don’t expect my study PROVES anything but my POV (due to it being based on my assumptions – ie, we would not agree on what constittues bias).
Dugger
Okay, so Chris Matthews said Hersh made it up. No credibility there, either. We all know what a flawless investigative reporter he is.
I did a quantitative study. But that study asserts my findings predicated on my assumptions.
Isn’t that sort of like distorting the facts to fit the plan?
Where have I heard that before?……