zlacker

He's lost his credibility over the years. Which is likely why this didn't get published by NY Times.

It's long but after reading this ask why you would believe this man who, in this new article, is making plenty of assertions all based on quotes from a single anonymous source.

https://www.vox.com/2015/5/11/8584473/seymour-hersh-osama-bi...

>>erentz+(OP)
Suppose this story was written by a "credible" reporter. Do you think NYT's Foreign Editors would allow it to be published? Would it pass the national security screening?

>>pphysc+I2
Claims and sources are supposed verified in journalism. In the case of anonymous sources a journalist can't just bring to his manager a quote and say he's anonymous because that journalist (as many have over the years) might have just made it up. The manager has to know the identity of the source. If the journalist won't share the identity then it won't fly. So if someone else brought this story to NY Times, they would have to give the identity of the source, the manager would need to verify that this source was in a position (time, place, job, what have you) to know the things claimed. And would usually want to hunt down another source that corroborates what this anonymous source says to give it some weight.

>>erentz+v4
Yes, I understand how journalism is supposed to work in theory.

>>pphysc+I2
> Do you think NYT's Foreign Editors would allow it to be published?

If someone had an inside source on deep background with evidence of an American cover-up? Hell yes they would. And if they wouldn't, the Journal would pay a premium.

>>JumpCr+Dg
The New York Times is not the New York Post. The former has numerous guardrails (including the aforementioned Foreign Editors and NatSec screenings, the latter of which you ignored) to prevent a rogue journalist or editor from publishing a big story that could jeopardize the entire organization's government relations.