[Marxism] Seymour Hersh's alternate reality

Louis Proyect lnp3 at panix.com
Mon Apr 7 10:11:32 MDT 2014


On 4/7/14 11:33 AM, Charlie wrote:
>
> For those who would like to evaluate the report by Hersh instead of
> reading an ad hominem attack on him, his article is at
> http://www.lrb.co.uk/2014/04/06/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
>

There is no "ad hominem" attack. According to Wikipedia, "Ad hominem" 
"is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is 
rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the 
person presenting the claim or argument."

Is it "ad hominem" to state that the New Yorker magazine found Hersh's 
first article below their standards?

Or that Hersh's reporting covers the same territory as Michael Maloof's, 
a former Pentagon security official who helped put together the Bush 
administration's WMD in Iraq story?

Or that Hersh fails to corroborate any of his sources? Or provide any 
hard evidence along the lines of Eliot Higgins's examination of missile 
remains?

Paul Woodward states: "The most inexcusable feature of Hersh’s reporting 
is that he effectively functions as his own source. In other words, for 
readers smitten by his reputation, what he reports is treated as fact 
for no other reason than the fact that he reported it."

Frankly, I wouldn't get caught dead writing the sort of nonsense that 
Hersh writes based on unnamed sources. I dealt with all this here:

http://louisproyect.org/2013/12/18/seymour-hersh-and-his-unnamed-sources/




More information about the Marxism mailing list