But if you read the two and use documentation as yardstick — and don't read either with an inclination to automatically dismiss on viewpoint because you already disagree with it — Chrenkoff's has more credibility. The reasons: he documents, he links. Hersh recently raised eyebrows when he contended that its OK when he speaks to use composites, etc. A lot of what he says is based on anonymous sources.Clearly, while not drawing a definitive conclusion, he leans towards giving Chrenkoff credit as being more valid based on the fact that Art's post includes numerous links as citations. I have a few bones to pick with those who tend towards that conclusion. First of all, I don't think that the two reports/opinions are mutually exclusive. There can be plenty of individual instances of good news inside of Iraq while the country is still, in general, spinning out of control and towards a potential (and, it seems, increasingly likely) civil war. It does not seem, at least to me, that one report has to invalidate the other.
Second, as Carla from Preemptive Karma points out in Joe's comments section, most of Chrenkoff's sources are government based. Given this administration's track record of hiding or grossly spinning information, buying pundits' "opinions" and releasing canned fake news by fake "reporters" supporting Bush programs, those sources should be questioned in a critical fashion.
There is also the issue of overall credibility, bias, and quality of the two sources. Art Chrenkoff is not exactly a household name outside of the blogosphere. His credentials, overall, are rather thin, to say the least, given the reputation of the person to whom he is being compared. He is also an unabashed pro-Bush, pro-war, administration cheerleader, and has been from day one. That's Art's personal politics and opinions, to which he is fully entitled. But it's also a factor to be taken into account when considering his conclusions.
Hersh is ... well, he's simply Seymour Hersh. The man is a legend in the field of journalism with prestigious awards to his credit. He dates back to exposing high profile stories in the Vietnam war, up through his shocking revelations about Abu Ghraeb. The reason for many of his sources being anonymous ties in directly to his phenomenal success in rooting out the big, exclusive breaking news. Highly placed people trust him to keep their identities secret when revealing them could cause them a lot of trouble. It's that level of trust that allows him to get such scoops.
Granted, Joe Gandelman is not saying that Hersh should be discounted simply because his sources are anonymous, but I would go one step further and say that is track record with anonymous sources and the success he has achieved over such a long period are, in fact, an argument in his favor. Should we critically question his reports and conclusions just as with any other reporter? Certainly. But in the case of Seymour Hersh, I think he has, by this stage of his career, earned the benefit of the doubt, at least until some conflicting information comes to light which might cast doubt on his report.
Hersh also lacks the inherent bias of Chrenkoff, which I alluded to above. He has been holding political feet to the fire on both sides of the aisle for as long as I can remember. Clinton was no fan of his. If it appears that he's currently "going after" the Republicans, and specifically Bush, that's only because they are the ones currently in power and making all of the news. Hersh is an equal opportunity interrogator, and I think that puts his perspective on the situation in Iraq on a significantly higher shelf than Chrenkoff's.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Be Nice