Scores of hits from publications across the globe pop up from an internet search for veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh’s claim that the US destroyed Russia’s Nord Stream gas pipeline.
The British news agency Reuters (2/9/23) ran at least ten stories on Seymour Hersh’s Nord Stream report; the US AP didn’t run one.
But what is most striking about the page after page of results from Google, Bing and DuckDuckGo in the weeks following the February 8 posting of Hersh’s story isn’t what is there, but what is not to be found:
- The Times of London (2/8/23) reported Hersh’s story hours after he posted it on his Substack account, but nothing in the New York Times.
- Britain’s Reuters News Agency moved at least ten stories (2/8/23, 2/9/23, 2/12/2, 2/15/23, among others), the Associated Press not one.
- Not a word broadcast by the major US broadcast networks—NBC, ABC, CBS—or the publicly funded broadcasters PBS and NPR.
- No news stories on the nation’s major cable outlets, CNN, MSNBC and Fox News.
Is there justification for such self-censorship? True, Hersh’s story is based on a single anonymous source. But anonymous sources are a staple of mainstream reporting on the US government, used by all major outlets. Further, countless stories of lesser national and international import have been published with the caveat that the facts reported have not been independently verified.
Doubts about Hersh’s story aside, by every journalistic standard, the extensive international coverage given the story, as well as the adamant White House and Pentagon denials, should have made it big news in the United States.
More important, if Hersh got it wrong, his story needs to be knocked down. Silence is not acceptable journalism.
News blackout
The online magazine Newsweek (2/8/23) was one of the few notable US outlets to cover Hersh’s report as a news story.
What’s not in doubt is the remarkable breadth of the news blackout surrounding Hersh’s story. The only major US newspaper to cover it as breaking news was the New York Post (2/8/23).
It did appear on the opinion pages—but not the news columns—of two major dailies. The Los Angeles Times (2/11/23) mentioned Hersh’s story in the 11th paragraph of a weekly round-up by the letters editor. On the New York Times opinion page (2/15/23), Ross Douthat included Hersh in a column headlined “UFOs and Other Unsolved Mysteries of Our Time.”
Fox News firebrands Tucker Carlson (2/8/23) and Laura Ingraham (2/14/23) collectively gave Hersh’s story a few minutes on their cable TV shows, but their network didn’t post a news story. On Fox News Sunday (2/19/23), National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby was asked about Hersh’s claims. But, again, Fox News didn’t do a separate news report.
Newsweek (2/8/23) has covered the story , but focusing mainly on White House denials and Russia’s reaction. Bloomberg News (2/9/23) ran a four-paragraph follow-up that also stressed the Russian response, but provided no details of Hersh’s account of the bombing.
The Washington Post’s first mention of the story (2/22/23) came two weeks after it was posted. Again, Russian reaction was the hook, as seen in the headline: “Russia, Blaming US Sabotage, Calls for UN Probe of Nord Stream.”
‘Discredited journalist’
Focusing on a story’s acceptance by an official enemy (Business Insider, 2/9/23) is a good tactic for promoting unquestioning rejection of information that challenges official narratives.
Arguably the most influential coverage of Hersh’s story came from Business Insider (2/9/23), which posted what can justly be called a hit piece, given its blatantly loaded headline: “The Claim by a Discredited Journalist That the US Secretly Blew Up the Nord Stream Pipeline Is Proving a Gift to Putin.”
The Business Insider article was picked up by Yahoo! (2/9/23) and MSN (2/9/23). It also was the primary source of an article in Snopes (2/10/23), the only major factchecking site to weigh in on Hersh’s claims. But Snopes, which bills itself as “the definitive Internet reference source for researching urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors and misinformation,” didn’t check any disputed facts. Instead, it starts with an ad hominem attack, asking “Who is Seymour Hersh?”
Snopes answers that rhetorical question by summarizing his body of work—uncovering the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, for which he received the Pulitzer Prize in 1970, revealing the secret bombing in Cambodia and the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq—but emphasizing that “his later work, however, has been controversial and widely panned by journalists for promoting conspiratorial claims that hinge on dubious anonymous sources or speculation.”
Snopes’ presentation is hardly even-handed. No defenders of Hersh are cited in the four-paragraph overview of his work, which includes seven hyperlinks to sources. That looks impressive. But clicking on the links reveals four are to the same source: the Business Insider hit piece.
Snopes’ failure to acknowledge multiple links to the same source isn’t just sloppy, it’s misleading, because most readers don’t check to see if the same source is cited repeatedly.
It’s likely Snopes used the Business Insider piece a fifth time—the last without attribution. The Snopes article’s final sentence states: “Hersch [sic] was asked by the Russian news agency TASS about the identity of his source. He told them that, ‘It’s a person, who, it seems, knows a lot about what’s going on.’ ”
The Business Insider piece ends with a paragraph with the same misspelling of Hersh’s name, the same TASS link and identical—word for word — translation of his response. (It doesn’t help Snopes’ credibility as a factchecker that Hersh’s name was originally misspelled two other times in the article.)
Much of the remainder of Snopes’ article consists of quotes from Hersh’s story, followed by commentary disparaging Hersh’s reliance on a single, unnamed source. Since that’s something Hersh readily acknowledges, it’s hard to see the informational value of the Snopes article.
Competition, not just critics
While several bloggers have challenged details in Hersh’s account, no news outlet has answered the only question that matters: Who blew up the pipeline?
Waiting for official explanations appears to be a dead end. Sweden, Denmark and Germany have launched investigations, but have not indicated when—or if—results would be released.
The giants of US journalism—the New York Times, Washington Post and the major broadcast networks—have the resources to try and solve the mystery. And it’s certainly possible that one or more of them are working to do just that. But the pipelines were destroyed five months ago. Since then, Seymour Hersh is the only journalist to offer an explanation of who was responsible.
There should be others. Hersh needs competition, not just critics.
Oh my…. the journalists have now become corporatists of some type. The news used to mean that reporters were really reporting, and that they seemed to worry more about real facts. Sadly it seems that today most who report have no souls….or least not much credibility. We need more Ralph Naders and more of those writers who persuade the truth and not just the income.
So we are left with few who really report—but so many others pretend to report and so we see the death of many papers. So New York TIMES—I am sorry but to me you have morphed into the NY CRIMES, and even that other paper the BEZOS Circus—— makes me cry. Hmmm there is that old saying, ” The Truth Will Out,” : But—-in the 21st century—– I guess not anymore.
While you make some valid points the fact remains the story is dubious, not for its use of a single source but because that single source claims to have knowledge if many things no single source would know; That is the criticism I’ve read about the story. Also, Why did he publish his story on Substack and nowhere else?
As to your last question, obviously he published it on Substack because no other outlet would. My question is the one raised by this article: Why did the piece receive virtually zero coverage?
Hello Howard:
Truly, and certainly sadly, I do not think that Russia blew up the pipeline. The true sadness is that America—no matter the party, seems willing to deny any truths. This is not the America that We the People need to see, or even be. : (
I rather think Mark Felt likely knew much in addition to the plumbers. So Hersh’s source may be a “high” official in the Biden administration. That the motivation is reasonable and only as a false flag would Russian be reasonable.
I am interested in Hersh’s account of the murder of Bin Ladin verification. It also was not accepted in the US, so published in the UK.
Sad comment, Howard. Obvious answers to all your points, needless to say.
nordSTREAM NOT the department store
The mistake has been fixed but I think the editors ought to add a correction note to the article. While it may be just a simple typo, the lack of an explanation unfortunately renders your comment senseless. Also to be FAIR, since the article makes an issue of Snopes et al. misspelling Hersh’s name, the editors ought to take some responsibility for a similar inaccuracy of their own.
Poly sci wiz Ian Bremmer does a pretty good dissection of Hersh’s claim, which is very, very sketchy. I’m a big fan of Hersh and was able to speak with him at a talk he gave touting “Reporter.” (Yes, I have an autographed copy!)
Anyway, https://www.gzeromedia.com/quick-take/who-blew-up-the-nord-stream-pipelines
Ralph Nader featured Hersh himself as well as his singular and unrefuted Pipeline sabotage story, going into his stellar revelatory journalism record. Nader Radio Hour of last week. Nader has always used telling details in his stories that add to their authenticity. As to the media silence about both Hersh and the agents of the Pipeline blow-up, it is nothing compared to the anemic and superficial coverage of the Jan 6th Insurrection and Trump’s catalytically central role in its clear attempt to overthrow the USG and any faith in USG. How long before we get a really strong man who scares into silence or even complicity major political and media figures and central institutions. The general coddling of clear traitors for fear of “hurting the feelings” of wild men and ignoramuses is truly a disgrace. Where are the retired military and political and elected officials outside of some few short-lived groups who write letters which are put in castoff bottles?
Supposing the whole story came out in U.S. Media, and people saw the story on the news and read about it online. Many would assume it’s true because they would reason that the fact that the U.S. Media tried hard to hide the story means there must be some truth to it. After watching news clip videos of Ultra MAGA Extremists, I am totally astonished that the rest of the world is not responding because without evidence, it’s hearsay. And maybe that’s the point: Ultra MAGA Extremists would run this story like it’s a fact and of course it would blow up in our faces.
How did Hersh end up with so much corroboration for his other blockbuster stories? I wish I could read the story about Nord Stream. Does this source know how it was done? Is it possible to identify a sub that would have been nearby? I have so many questions about all of this. How did this source conclude that the U.S. was responsible other than hearsay? How was this source able to convince a veteran reporter that he was telling the truth? His position or status? Was this source personally responsible for launching the missile?
But who else would / could blow up Russia’s pipeline? And why? We need to identify the suspects.
All of your questions are answered in Hersh’s article. Why don’t you just read it?
The suspect is obvious. I suggest you watch Prof. Jeffrery Sachs’ presentation before the UN Security Council which is on youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr5MBrvnPLw
> “Hersh’s story is based on a single anonymous source”
– no, it isn’t. What is the original source which asserts the was a single source of for Hersh?
Given the corporate state propaganda network’s treatment of such a famous and important journalist is the last nail in the coffin of their long well known and well established complete lack of credibility. I think Americans have finally caught on to this fact which makes me quite thankful that outlets like FAIR exist, Mike Liston
The corporate owned US media has rarely been as misleading about all things Russian as they are right now. I do not believe anything in the western press when it comes to Russia, China, Cuba or Venezuela.
But I have no doubt. Mr Hersch is right about Nord Stream.
This story was well covered on Democracy Now.
More evidence why the Empire’s corporate state propaganda network is unfit to pay any attention. We can get local news from local sources and for the rest, look to the many uncensored news sites, like Fair, that we can still access on the internet, Mike Liston
Thanks for this. BUT: it is unfortunate that you repeat the phrase “a single source”. That a story originates from one point in a whistleblower revelation is always checked and rechecked from multiple angeles. As Hersh also reports. I know that Fair knows this, but it needs to be emphasised since the “a single source”-argument is frequently used to discredit Hersh – unfairly.
Thank you David Knox and FAIR for having the courage to do this story.
This just in. The New York Times has started pushing an obviously false story that it was Ukrainian operatives who carried out the attack. Of course, they didn’t have anyone on record or provide any corroborating evidence. Hersh is far more credible.
It’s worthy of note that the US MSM is now promoting a US Gov. claim that a Ukranian team blew it up .
Just ask motive , means ; opportunity .
It’s remarkable that some see Hersh’s reporting as “dubious”. Even before Hersh cited an anonymous source, others familiar with the region, such as Prof. Jeffery Sachs (who also laid out the case recently before the UN Security Council – a presentation also largely ignored by US media), stated it was obvious that the United States was behind the sabotage. The US, of course, originally blamed Russia for blowing up its own expensive infrastructure, an allegation which was on its face totally ludicrous. If Russia wanted to deprive Europe of natural gas, it wouldn’t need to surreptitiously plant explosives on its own pipelines – it could simply turn a few valves to stop the flow. Moreover the US had for years opposed Nord Stream, urging Europe to look to the US gas market instead. And of course Biden had publicly said before the Russian invasion that the US would “end” Nord Stream, telling an incredulous German reporter that “we have the means”. So the motive is obvious. And of course there were NATO military exercises before the explosion in the area where the pipeline lay, providing excellent cover for divers. Now we have the US government’s latest bizarre attempt to explain the sabotage (reported uncritically by the New York Times etc), which is that an independent Ukrainian group managed to get high explosives unnoticed into Germany, put them on a small boat with a small crew, locate the pipeline under hundreds of feet of water, plant the explosions (without a decompression chamber available for the divers, who would need to be experts in underwater demolition) and then remotely detonate the devices. I suggest anyone who swallows this, including the now obviously untrustworthy NYT, seek reality therapy of some kind. (Actually, ever since Judith Miller, and even before, the NYT was untrustworthy – along with the rest of US corporate media).