I agee 1000% about investigative reporting.

I just think that there is a bit of a dilemma here.
Bacuse X is uncovered as having lied, there is the tendency to take everything the debunker says on faith. One liar can truthfully expose another liar.

This having NOTHING TO DO WITH HERSH, I just think we should retain some scepticism and back checking about all news reports, whether the source is the WH or an investigative reporter..

I must admit that the lack of candor by the WH and its agents on Iraq and Iran, has led me to give more credence to Hersh’s accounts.

Hersh may be unpopular, but I’m glad he’s out there digging up the inconvenient truth. Investigative reporting seems to be going the way of the dinosaur, with more and more newspapers choosing just to mindlessly repeat AP reports, and editorial writers taking increasing liberties with the facts.

Someitmes, I cna’t help wishing I could ask him: ‘How do you know this?” So many of his sources are anonymous, and it’s often unclear if certain information comes from just one source or if it has been corroborated by others.

I don’t know if this tiny pellet of scepticism comes from Mr. Hersh in particular or from the experience of so many exposes lately that are followed by denials from the people quoted as soon as the book comes out.
There seems to be an element of he said,/ he said about nearly everything these days.

It’s true, though. Sometimes the best sources for US news are in other countreis We don’t get anything like a full picture here, the gazillions of news outlets notwithstanding.