With his article titled "Sy Hersh Says It's Okay to Lie (Just Not in Print)" and subtitled "Sy Hersh's Loose Relationship With the Literal Truth" you would think that he would have used some of those 3500+ words to document actual lies told by Sy Hersh, yet all I could find was an exaggeration of numbers used to pull actual numbers out of a uncooperative source. Hardly the same thing. He attempts to use the fact that in speeches Sy Hersh will sometimes use unverified numbers while working on a story to hopefully get other reporters off their asses as Hersh's "problem with the truth".
"There are two Hershes, really. Seymour M. is the byline. He navigates readers through the byzantine world of America’s overlapping national-security bureaucracies, and his stories form what Hersh has taken to calling an "alternative history" of the Bush administration since September 11, 2001.
Then there's Sy. He's the public speaker, the pundit. On the podium, Sy is willing to tell a story that’s not quite right, in order to convey a Larger Truth. "Sometimes I change events, dates, and places in a certain way to protect people," Hersh told me. "I can’t fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say."
No, Chris, there's actually just one Sy Hersh, and you and the majority of journalists in this country should be damn glad we have him as an example of the way it should be done. The reason his writing IS so great is that it IS researched and facts are verified. That's what great writing and editing is, Chris. Try it sometime.