Recent Blog Posts
-
Conde Nast Closing 'Portfolio'
Apr 27 200910:02 am EDT -
Newspaper Circ: 'WSJ' Gains as 'NY Post' Tumbles
Apr 27 20099:32 am EDT -
Idle Chatter: The Prognosis for Newspapers, more
Apr 27 20098:55 am EDT -
Late Breaks: MySpace, NYT, 'New York'
Apr 24 20094:01 pm EDT -
Nostalgia, Entitlement and Murdoch's 'Journal'
Apr 24 20094:00 pm EDT
Links
- SI.com - Richard Deitsch

- I Want Media

- Editor & Publisher

- Galleycat

- Magazine Death Pool

- WWD's Memo Pad

- Talking Biz News

- Media Nation

- Hollywood Wiretap

- FAIR

- The Media Pundit

- NYT Media

- MediaFile

- Gapper Blog - Media

- Jezebel

- The Business Insider

- Viral Video

- Ad Age

- Newsbusters

- News After Newspapers

- Nikki Finke

- News Hounds

- NY Observer media page

- Valleywag

- Paid Content

- TVNewser

- Nieman Journalism Lab

- Romenesko

- Keith Kelly

- Contact Me

- Cover Awards

- Tyndall Report

- Jon Friedman

- Gawker

- Jon Fine

- Media Shift

- HuffPo Media

Not All WMD Intelligence Is Hype
Was the dean of national security reporters misled by his sources into downplaying a genuine threat?
Back in February, The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh looked into the fuzzily-explained bombing by Israeli forces of a target in Syria.
Hersh noted leaked reports that the targeted building was a nuclear reactor under construction with North Korean help; but he also quoted a range of sources (including several in the Syrian regime) who insisted otherwise, claiming it was actually a fertilizer warehouse, or a factory for missiles or chemical weapons. After a good deal of back and forth, Hersh seemed to side with the nuke-skeptics, writing, "Whatever was under construction, with North Korean help, it apparently had little to do with agriculture -- or with nuclear reactors -- but much to do with Syria's defense posture, and its military relationship with North Korea."
Fast-forward to yesterday, when the Bush Administration, in what Time called a "convincing presentation," went public with evidence that the site was indeed a reactor in the making.
Is this another instance of the trend, identified by Slate's Jack Shafer, of Hersh being "consistently off the mark" in his post-9/11 reporting? (Of course, Shafer wrote that while predicting that Hersh would be proven wrong about the absence of WMDs in Iraq. Whoops.)
No, says a New Yorker spokeswoman, because Hersh's story -- despite the passage quoted above -- wasn't meant to be read as debunking the claims of a reactor. "It wasn't a 'gotcha' piece," she says. "He was raising questions, saying 'Here's this mystery, there are contradictions in the various published accounts, what's the real story here?' He didn't come to any big conclusion."






