Controversial Reporting
In its April 17 issue, the New Yorker will publish a report by journalist Seymour Hersh that claims the U.S. is stepping up its plan of attack regarding Iran-- particularly suggesting that the U.S. is seriously considering the use of "bunker buster" tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's main centrifuge plant. Although Hersh's investigative report quotes several unnamed officials, leading to much criticism over the validity of his conclusions, there is still much to be considered.
First of all, we are no stranger to the idea of military action regarding Iran-- rumors have been floating around on various news sources. The fact that an investigative journalist is confirming it should not be the basis for controversy that it seems to be-- it is not as if the journalist created an implausible theory. Not only that, Hersh's report cannot dismissed on the basis of seemingly questionable sources. In fact, his track record would suggest otherwise-- he has received a Pulitzer prize for uncovering the My Lai massacre and his investigation at Abu Ghraib exposed "one of the worst scandals in the Bush administration." Upon considering these two accomplishments, Seymour Hersh's reliability as an investigative journalist would seem undisputed. Add to that the fact that Washington officials have not blatantly denied Hersh's claims, but have simply reinforced their diplomatic intentions-- a stance that Hersh suggests is a mask for the public, while the secret plan of attack is being developed.
Given Hersh's career and Washington's response, it is a bit surprising that such an article is being criticised so greatly-- some critics have even gone so far as to suggest that Hersh is looking for trouble and adhering to the old adage "where there is smoke, there is fire". While the fact remains that he has not named his sources, which is a justifiable reason for doubt, Hersh's distinguished accomplishments and established reliability should be taken into account. And perhaps the article's prominent use in established media sources such as BBC and CNN lends it credence as well.
First of all, we are no stranger to the idea of military action regarding Iran-- rumors have been floating around on various news sources. The fact that an investigative journalist is confirming it should not be the basis for controversy that it seems to be-- it is not as if the journalist created an implausible theory. Not only that, Hersh's report cannot dismissed on the basis of seemingly questionable sources. In fact, his track record would suggest otherwise-- he has received a Pulitzer prize for uncovering the My Lai massacre and his investigation at Abu Ghraib exposed "one of the worst scandals in the Bush administration." Upon considering these two accomplishments, Seymour Hersh's reliability as an investigative journalist would seem undisputed. Add to that the fact that Washington officials have not blatantly denied Hersh's claims, but have simply reinforced their diplomatic intentions-- a stance that Hersh suggests is a mask for the public, while the secret plan of attack is being developed.
Given Hersh's career and Washington's response, it is a bit surprising that such an article is being criticised so greatly-- some critics have even gone so far as to suggest that Hersh is looking for trouble and adhering to the old adage "where there is smoke, there is fire". While the fact remains that he has not named his sources, which is a justifiable reason for doubt, Hersh's distinguished accomplishments and established reliability should be taken into account. And perhaps the article's prominent use in established media sources such as BBC and CNN lends it credence as well.
posted by Ankona at 12:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home