Is there justification for such self-censorship? True, Hersh’s story is based on a single anonymous source. But anonymous sources are a staple of mainstream reporting on the US government, used by all major outlets. Further, countless stories of lesser national and international import have been published with the caveat that the facts reported have not been independently verified.
Doubts about Hersh’s story aside, by every journalistic standard, the extensive international coverage given the story, as well as the adamant White House and Pentagon denials, should have made it big news in the United States.
More important, if Hersh got it wrong, his story needs to be knocked down. Silence is not acceptable journalism.
Hersh 주장이 근거가 없는 것이라면, 그것을 따져 물어 찌그러지게 해야 한다는 것이지요.
1살짜이 우크라인 아이들을 강간햇다는 개 소리는 정의감에 쩌러 잘도 씨불리면서....정작 그런것과는 비교 조차 되지 않을 사안은 아예 보도 조차 하지 않습니다........이런것이 제조된 동의가 아니면 무엇일까요?
News blackout
The online magazine Newsweek (2/8/23) was one of the few notable US outlets to cover Hersh’s report as a news story.
What’s not in doubt is the remarkable breadth of the news blackout surrounding Hersh’s story. The only major US newspaper to cover it as breaking news was the New York Post (2/8/23).
It did appear on the opinion pages—but not the news columns—of two major dailies. The Los Angeles Times (2/11/23) mentioned Hersh’s story in the 11th paragraph of a weekly round-up by the letters editor. On the New York Times opinion page (2/15/23), Ross Douthat included Hersh in a column headlined “UFOs and Other Unsolved Mysteries of Our Time.”(재밋지요..2007년 월가 붕괴을 경고 햇던 경제학자들도 이런 취급을 받앗습니다..)
Fox News firebrands Tucker Carlson (2/8/23) and Laura Ingraham (2/14/23) collectively gave Hersh’s story a few minutes on their cable TV shows, but their network didn’t post a news story. On Fox News Sunday (2/19/23), National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby was asked about Hersh’s claims. But, again, Fox News didn’t do a separate news report.
Newsweek (2/8/23) has covered the story , but focusing mainly on White House denials and Russia’s reaction. Bloomberg News (2/9/23) ran a four-paragraph follow-up that also stressed the Russian response, but provided no details of Hersh’s account of the bombing.
The Washington Post’s first mention of the story (2/22/23) came two weeks after it was posted. Again, Russian reaction was the hook, as seen in the headline: “Russia, Blaming US Sabotage, Calls for UN Probe of Nord Stream.”
‘Discredited journalist’
Focusing on a story’s acceptance by an official enemy (Business Insider, 2/9/23) is a good tactic for promoting unquestioning rejection of information that challenges official narratives.
Arguably the most influential coverage of Hersh’s story came from Business Insider (2/9/23), which posted what can justly be called a hit piece, given its blatantly loaded headline: “The Claim by a Discredited Journalist(신뢰할 수 없는 언론인..) That the US Secretly Blew Up the Nord Stream Pipeline Is Proving a Gift to Putin.”..(ㅋㅋㅋ)
The Business Insider article was picked up by Yahoo! (2/9/23) and MSN (2/9/23). It also was the primary source of an article in Snopes (2/10/23), the only major factchecking site to weigh in on Hersh’s claims. But Snopes, which bills itself as “the definitive Internet reference source for researching urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors and misinformation,” didn’t check any disputed facts. Instead, it starts with an ad hominem attack, asking “Who is Seymour Hersh?”
Snopes answers that rhetorical question by summarizing his body of work—uncovering the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, for which he received the Pulitzer Prize in 1970, revealing the secret bombing in Cambodia and the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq—but emphasizing that “his later work, however, has been controversial and widely panned by journalists for promoting conspiratorial claims that hinge on dubious anonymous sources or speculation.”
Snopes’ presentation is hardly even-handed. No defenders of Hersh are cited in the four-paragraph overview of his work, which includes seven hyperlinks to sources. That looks impressive. But clicking on the links reveals four are to the same source: the Business Insider hit piece.
Snopes’ failure to acknowledge multiple links to the same source isn’t just sloppy, it’s misleading, because most readers don’t check to see if the same source is cited repeatedly.
It’s likely Snopes used the Business Insider piece a fifth time—the last without attribution. The Snopes article’s final sentence states: “Hersch [sic] was asked by the Russian news agency TASS about the identity of his source. He told them that, ‘It’s a person, who, it seems, knows a lot about what’s going on.’ ”
The Business Insider piece ends with a paragraph with the same misspelling of Hersh’s name, the same TASS link and identical—word for word — translation of his response. (It doesn’t help Snopes’ credibility as a factchecker that Hersh’s name was originally misspelled two other times in the article.)
Much of the remainder of Snopes’ article consists of quotes from Hersh’s story, followed by commentary disparaging Hersh’s reliance on a single, unnamed source. Since that’s something Hersh readily acknowledges, it’s hard to see the informational value of the Snopes article.
Competition, not just critics
While several bloggers have challenged details in Hersh’s account, no news outlet has answered the only question that matters: Who blew up the pipeline?
Waiting for official explanations appears to be a dead end. Sweden, Denmark and Germany have launched investigations, but have not indicated when—or if—results would be released.
The giants of US journalism—the New York Times, Washington Post and the major broadcast networks—have the resources to try and solve the mystery. And it’s certainly possible that one or more of them are working to do just that. But the pipelines were destroyed five months ago. Since then, Seymour Hersh is the only journalist to offer an explanation of who was responsible.
There should be others. Hersh needs competition, not just critics.(허시는 자신의 주장에 대한 비판자가 필요한 것이 아니고, 파이프라인 파괴자가 누구인가를 주장하는 다른 경쟁자가 필요하다.)
-주류언론이,,,자유언론이 이런 역할을 햇다면, Seymour Hersh 같은 사람이 나오질 않앗겟지요.
미국 언론만큼 많은 정보과 짜집기 능력을 갖고 잇는 조직은 없습니다.
그들은 4년 내내 트럼프가 푸틴의 간첩이라는 주장을 만들어 퍼트렷고 꼼짝없이 일반화시켯습니다.
트럼프는 꼼짝없이 파시스트이고, 미국의 민주주의를 후퇴 시킨 푸틴의 푸들이라는 것인데..
이들이 이런 엄청난 능력을 갖고도 왜?? 노스스트림 파이프 라인 파괴라는 전대미문의 사건에 대해 그리도 침묵 하는지...
그 사실만 가지고도 그들은 파이프라인 파괴자가 미국정부임을 역설적으로 알리는 것이아닐까요.
5공 청문회때 한 언론인은...
왜 전두환 정권 찬양 찬송만 존나 처 햇냐??...니들을 언론이라 할 수 잇느냐??
라는 의원의 질문에....
..시민들은 우리가 쓴 기사의 행간의 의미를 알고 읽엇다.....라고 나발 거렷습니다.
행간을 읽어 보쇼요...
이런 기사를 ..전두환 씨벌놈...으로 읽을 수 잇써야 대한민국 국민이랍니돵...
과거나 지금이나...국민 노릇 해 처먹기 증말 힘들어..
미래는 또 얼마나 소름 끼치게 힘들까???
미국의 언론이 한국의 언론에서 배운 것일까요?
미국 국민들도 국민노릇 해 처먹기 얼마나 힘들까??