His source could be MI5 agent that’s why the UK is not mentioned at all
Considering the way we treat whistleblowers, it’s no surprise that they would want to remain anonymous.
Protecting your source is what good investigative journalists do.
2 Likes
I don’t think the issue is protecting a source. The issue is that he apparently has a single source that knows everything.
Even a first year journalism student is taught to get confirmation on stuff. What Hersh is doing is reporting publicly available info and stitching it all together with a single anonymous person. That’s why he had to drop this on his substack. No real outlet would publish without better sourcing.
@SRCJJ There is a lot of bad faith defense of Israeli foreign policy. Then you have literal generations of people who were sold the idea that attacking the Israeli government is the same as attacking all Jews regardless of their nationality. And in the USA in particular you can’t even debate Israeli foreign policy because the right, center and center left haven’t figured out that being Jewish and Israeli are two different things.
2 Likes
You’re right, they’d rather report that Russia blew up its own pipeline without any evidence 
Or they’ll cite an “unnamed intelligence source”, and that will be perfectly acceptable.
I’m not saying that explanation is any more satisfying, but Hersh using a single seemingly omnipotent source is bad journalism.
So Glen Greenwald’s story about the NSA was bad journalism because the only source was Edward Snowden?
Either it’s a reliable source, or it isn’t.
In the same vain you can’t say he is bad because snopes said so with no evidence to the contrary
Snowden had documents. That’s how you corroborate a source. And Greenwald? I’m sorry if you like him but that guy’s brain has been pickled to the point that they’re serving little slices of it alongside tuna melts at the deli near my house.
@ryaninho It’s not me saying he’s bad because Snopes said so, that was just an article indicating he allegedly used a single omnipotent source. I’m saying that article he wrote is bad because that’s questionable practice.
The thing is everything the source mentioned is documented and happened all the events
It’s not like the President told us all what was going to happen.
1 Like
I will wait for western media to unanimously condemn this aggression and attack on a sovereign nation’s territory.
Yeah, interesting right.
The trustworthy never lying , no agenda peddling western media take a long time this time to point who did it. 
The pipeline wasn’t operational and wasn’t even certified by Germany to be used.
So how did it fuck up there economy?
The pipeline was not running but since this war Germany had to stop getting cheaper oil and gas from Russia. The excess they would sell in to other nations. Now they have to rely on the more expensive US oil and gas which had left the treasury short. The only winner from this war is America as it had crushed the euro zone which was a finical competitor and lifted the petro dollar
1 Like
Well yes that’s all correct but that has nothing to do with nordstream 2.
Geez. Who might have done it
That’s not what he’s doing with the article. He’s reporting facts and then using this one source to connect them into a conspiracy.
Probably America but I didn’t say otherwise.
I’m just saying germanys high gas prices and economy was not brought about because of nordstream 2 being blown up. It was because of EU and Germany policy to decrease Russian gas imports.
That’s fair enough
That and deciding to shut down all their nuclear plants.
5 Likes