All the anonymity that's fit to print

Why does the mainstream media give the New York Times a pass for using anonymous government sources but castigate Seymour Hersh for protecting whistle blowers?

The massive gas leak caused by the secret US Navy bombing of Germany’s Nord Stream pipeline. (Swedish Coast Guard)

One and a half months on from the publication by veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh of a world exclusive article revealing exactly how the United States blew up the Nord Stream gas pipeline, and US officialdom has inadvertently done everything possible to give the impression that Hersh was right.

The pipeline, which transported cheaper Russian to Germany, was blown up in September last year. Hersh exposed the details of the plot — which was in effect a secret terrorist attack by the US Navy against one of its own allies: Germany.

To make matters worse, there were multiple insinuations via the US press that Russia might have been responsible for the attack (which never made even the slightest bit of sense — if the Russians had wanted to stop the gas flow to Germany they could simply stop sending the gas by turning the tap off at their end). Hence it was also a false flag attack of sorts.

The mainstream media’s reaction to Hersh’s scoop has been predictably bad. They did their best to ignore or undermine Hersh’s report, despite his decades long track record of being proven absolutely correct.

When they were no longer ignoring him, they did their best to undermine Hersh, claiming he was a mere “blogger” and that his explosive investigative article was just a “post” here on Substack (horror of horrors!)

But the most laughable attempt to undermine Hersh’s report has come from the New York Times — his former employer.