zlacker

Presumably not with just anyone who reported that claiming to have a source, but only because it’s Hersh.

As far as I can see your position evaluates to ‘dang trusts Hersh‘.

Since it’s 2023 and we use machines to do our thinking now, I consulted ChatGPT about this. I draw your attention to the last paragraph.

—————

strawpeople: Can Seymour Hersh’s reporting always be trusted?

chatgpt:

Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who has had a long and storied career. While he has been praised for his investigative reporting and his ability to uncover important stories, it is important to note that not all of his reporting can always be trusted. Like any journalist, Hersh is human and may make mistakes or have biases that affect the accuracy of his reporting.

Additionally, some of Hersh's reporting has been called into question, and he has faced criticism for making claims that are not supported by evidence or for relying on sources that are not credible. For example, in 2017, Hersh faced criticism for his reporting on the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun, Syria, which some experts said was based on unreliable sources and was contradicted by a large body of evidence.

In conclusion, it is important to approach Hersh's reporting with a critical eye and to carefully evaluate the evidence and sources he relies on. While some of his reporting has been praised for its accuracy and impact, it is not always reliable and should be independently verified.

>>strawp+(OP)
No where do I see dang claiming he trusts Hersh. You're just putting words into their mouth now. If anything, they've exlicitly said otherwise in a few threads, but said Hersh shouldn't be so easily dismissed due to his reputation and history with similar reporting. So, his reporting holds more weight than mine or yours.

It should still be approached critically, though.

People here seem largely seem dismissive of this story because they don't like it (or the author).

I've addressed in another thread why the sources are unnamed, but it's plausible it's to protect their safety, and lack of presentable evidence could also be the same reason. Information could be somehow fingerprintes to identify leaks. Hollywood did/does it; printers do it too.

---

> Since it’s 2023 and we use robots now, I consulted ChatGPT about this

On a lighter note, this made me laugh. Somehow makes it seem like we're in 3023, not 2023... but also like it's 2023. What a time to be alive.

>>spoile+P1
> No where do I see dang claiming he trusts Hersh. You're just putting words into their mouth now.

I’m not putting words in anyone’s mouth.

Given that it’s clear he wouldn’t give this post special treatment if it wasn’t from Hersh, we can reasonably infer that dang trusts Hersh more than a random poster as you suggest he should.

I don’t think you represent dang, and at question here is dang’s reasons for giving the story special treatment, which unless you are a dang sock puppet you don’t have special insight into.

>>strawp+B9
I apologise for responding on their behalf. You're right that they can speak for themselves, it was uncalled for on my side.

... And since we're indulging in unnecessary snide comments: They've outlined their reasoning already in a few places. Maybe if you read this thread instead of conversed with ChatGPT, we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with.

>>spoile+7g
I assume that wasn’t meant as a sincere apology.

If that is what you are up to, let’s end at this point.