The controversial statement Hersh is making is that Obama directly and definitively intervened through a threat. And that threat reinforced core negative narratives about both Biden and Obama that otherwise aren't present in the evidence. The source for this is suspect. Outside of that statement, Hersh is just saying what happened in a way that pretends to be insightful. Like he's just singing out loud what he just watched happen. Then he adds the spicy but unsubstantiated claim built on the scaffolding of stuff he didn't need an inside source to provide. Exactly the way Rush Limbaugh did things. I'd say skepticism is pretty strongly warranted.
I don't know where this "pretends to be insightful" stuff is coming from. He has a source that claims Obama directly threatened Biden with the 25th amendment and that Harris had agreed to it. It is, of course, crucial that the VP be on board with any plan to do that. The source could be telling the truth, or maybe Hersh is being played by someone for their own reasons. I also don't know where the comparison with Rush Limbaugh is coming from.
Yeah, I can see why people would not want to believe this. I think skepticism or reserve is usually a good idea. On the other hand, the fact that a source is anonymous doesn't mean the person is lying. It could be that they have a very good reason to protect themselves from backlash. After all, the narrative of heroic Joe Biden just doing the right, patriotic thing by stepping back isn't all that believable in the ideal sense in which it is being pushed. I think most people are at least aware that there is a lot of massaging of the message going on. How dark what it is covering for gets is uncertain. Maybe it is just a case of Joe coming to his senses and people figuring out a way to move forward. Or, maybe Obama did threaten Joe with the 25th amendment.
What is a little surprising to me is the negative reaction to Hersh, as though he were interchangeable with Rush Limbaugh. That I really don't get.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
Rush Limbaugh's style relied on presenting multiple supported statements (let's call them true) followed by an outrageous lie. The purpose of the true statements was to establish a false sense of credibility so the lie could slip through the gate after them.
The article shared does the same. While it uses language that colors the actions of Democratic leadership, the presentation that there was collective pressure from Schumer, Pelosi and Jefferies isn't unique to his reporting. They made statements of their own. That Biden became ill and returned home to recover from reported COVID? Not unique to his reporting. That major donation sources were alarmed and had voiced serious concerns including in a call that weekend? Also otherwise supported.
What the Hersh reporting does differently is arrange and color the otherwise available facts to feed into the primary unique claim he makes: Obama directly threatened Biden with the 25th amendment with the blessing of the Democrat leadership as well as Harris.
Did Obama directly threaten Biden with the 25th amendment with the blessing of the Democrat leadership as well as Harris? Did it happen or not? That's the question that should be asked, not style questions. Hersh says Obama did based on his source. Whether or not the article is in the style of Rush Limbaugh is wholly irrelevant, other than designed to justify the quick decision to deny Hersh's reporting.
Last edited by Dr Exiled on Sun Aug 04, 2024 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
Where do you guys stand on JFK coming back to join Trump? Makes you wonder what role Obama played in this summoning. Did Schumer and Pelosi play a role as assistant necromancers?
Did Obama directly threaten Biden with the 25th amendment with the blessing of the Democrat leadership as well as Harris? Did it happen or not? That's the question that should be asked, not style questions.
You start with asking what evidence there is for this. That evidence is described as a source who has fund raising experience. How does one weigh that against the lack of evidence otherwise in favor of it being true? Does one assign weight to the claim because Biden did drop out before this article was published? Maybe, but not as much as if it came out before he dropped out or any of the other claims in it became substantiated after the claims were made. You know, like Joseph Smith's Civil War prophecy that's impressive if you aren't familiar with the facts at the time it was issued and that it proved to be a failed prediction rather than prophetic. Or, you know, Hersh claiming Biden ordered the CIA to sabotage a Russian pipeline despite evidence it was likely Ukraine done against US disapproval.
Conspiracy brain works the way it does because you get to assign weight where you want and don't want. That's cool for you, bro. But no one is obligated to take a turn pushing down on that side of the scale of evidence just because you want it to weigh more than it does in its own. It certainly doesn't out weigh the fact the claim benefits certain narratives while being unsubstantiated otherwise.
To the question of if this is style over substance: It's a technique used by liars. Using truths to create a bias that gets applied to a lie is timeless. Limbaugh used it extensively.
If it were style only, understanding it would be a subjective exercise in taste. It's not. One can systematically compare the claims made to the evidence and see the pattern. Claims 1, 2, and 3 have supporting evidence folks likely know to be true or can find easily followed by the most damaging claim with vague unsubstantiated support or innuendo?
Bingo.
ETA: The tonal coloring of the evidence to add to the bias is more of a style question as it is largely applied and received subjectively. We are pretty bad at discerning it when it is in the direction of our own existing biases, too. The counter critical thinking technique being to tap into the opinions of those who don't share those views who view the framing as misleading. At least then one can see there is a tint to the reporting one might be blind to themselves.
It's funny how the right thinks Obama was such a terrible president but is currently uber-powerful behind the scenes.
What a life, to be completely unrestrained by reality, logic and common sense. If only they used that unfettered imagination to avoid crippling fear about everything.
What is even funnier and more tragic to me is how many on the right somehow failed to see how obviously terrible a president Trump was.
No precept or claim is more suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
Rush Limbaugh's style relied on presenting multiple supported statements (let's call them true) followed by an outrageous lie. The purpose of the true statements was to establish a false sense of credibility so the lie could slip through the gate after them.
The article shared does the same. While it uses language that colors the actions of Democratic leadership, the presentation that there was collective pressure from Schumer, Pelosi and Jefferies isn't unique to his reporting. They made statements of their own. That Biden became ill and returned home to recover from reported COVID? Not unique to his reporting. That major donation sources were alarmed and had voiced serious concerns including in a call that weekend? Also otherwise supported.
What the Hersh reporting does differently is arrange and color the otherwise available facts to feed into the primary unique claim he makes: Obama directly threatened Biden with the 25th amendment with the blessing of the Democrat leadership as well as Harris.
This is a very Limbaugh-esque move.
LOL!!! Dear me. So now we have moved from skepticism to certainty that this is a lie. Sorry, I’m not biting. This is not Limbaughesque. It is a story that relies heavily on an anonymous source. It may be untrue in that it relies too much on that source, but I don’t really see anything terrible sinister or unbelievable about it. I don’t know that it is true, but that is different from being a lie. Maybe the source lied. That does not mean Hersh lied. He used the source to put together a hypothetical narrative.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
Did Obama directly threaten Biden with the 25th amendment with the blessing of the Democrat leadership as well as Harris? Did it happen or not? That's the question that should be asked, not style questions. Hersh says Obama did based on his source. Whether or not the article is in the style of Rush Limbaugh is wholly irrelevant, other than designed to justify the quick decision to deny Hersh's reporting.
That is the question. The Limbaugh thing is just a smear. I am fine with not believing the narrative of a journalist who has a spotty record, but the Limbaugh comparison is daft.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
Where do you guys stand on JFK coming back to join Trump? Makes you wonder what role Obama played in this summoning. Did Schumer and Pelosi play a role as assistant necromancers?
He’s an antivax kook. He’ll probably hurt Trump more than help.
