Seymour Hersh walked down six blocks without seeing any sign of life, reflecting the barren landscape of investigative journalism. He stopped at a drugstore to buy a copy of the New York Times, pondering whether anyone else had bought one that morning.
Hersh was born in 1937, a year marked by tragedy and upheaval. This has made him a seasoned journalist, having worked for major publications like the New York Times and The New Yorker. He's broken numerous high-profile stories on Vietnam, Watergate, Gaza, and Ukraine, but feels his craft is under siege.
A new documentary, Cover-Up, highlights Hersh's illustrious career, focusing on key exposés such as the 1968 My Lai massacre and the 2004 Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal. The film also acknowledges some of his missteps and reliance on unnamed sources. Despite this, Hersh remains committed to telling the stories he believes need to be told.
The documentary's director, Laura Poitras, had previously won Oscars for her documentaries Citizenfour and All the Beauty and the Bloodshed. Cover-Up shows a more complex side of Hersh, revealing his prickly personality and tendency to quit projects when they don't align with his vision.
Poitras explains that she was initially met with resistance from Hersh, who eventually dropped out of the project but returned after 24 hours. This back-and-forth is typical of their working relationship, Poitras notes, as she often presses her subjects for more personal insight.
Hersh's concerns about the state of journalism are echoed by his co-director, Mark Obenhaus. The first amendment is under threat, and the media landscape has become increasingly atomized, making it harder for good journalism to break through.
Obenhaus notes that without gatekeepers like legacy media outlets, information can spread quickly but also be unreliable. Hersh's decision to write on Substack allows him to maintain his independence and cover stories he believes in, free from editorial interference.
Cover-Up shows that the journalist's role is often a thankless and fruitless endeavor, but one that remains crucial for social change. Hersh has witnessed this firsthand over his six-decade career, which has given him perspective on the importance of journalism.
The documentary premiere at Venice was an emotional experience for Hersh, who claims he was embarrassed by the audience's applause. However, Poitras recalls a more tearful response from Hersh during the screening.
Hersh is known for being a thorn in the side of institutions, and his appearance at the film's premiere only reinforced this image. Despite this, his commitment to telling the stories he believes in remains unwavering.
Hersh was born in 1937, a year marked by tragedy and upheaval. This has made him a seasoned journalist, having worked for major publications like the New York Times and The New Yorker. He's broken numerous high-profile stories on Vietnam, Watergate, Gaza, and Ukraine, but feels his craft is under siege.
A new documentary, Cover-Up, highlights Hersh's illustrious career, focusing on key exposés such as the 1968 My Lai massacre and the 2004 Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal. The film also acknowledges some of his missteps and reliance on unnamed sources. Despite this, Hersh remains committed to telling the stories he believes need to be told.
The documentary's director, Laura Poitras, had previously won Oscars for her documentaries Citizenfour and All the Beauty and the Bloodshed. Cover-Up shows a more complex side of Hersh, revealing his prickly personality and tendency to quit projects when they don't align with his vision.
Poitras explains that she was initially met with resistance from Hersh, who eventually dropped out of the project but returned after 24 hours. This back-and-forth is typical of their working relationship, Poitras notes, as she often presses her subjects for more personal insight.
Hersh's concerns about the state of journalism are echoed by his co-director, Mark Obenhaus. The first amendment is under threat, and the media landscape has become increasingly atomized, making it harder for good journalism to break through.
Obenhaus notes that without gatekeepers like legacy media outlets, information can spread quickly but also be unreliable. Hersh's decision to write on Substack allows him to maintain his independence and cover stories he believes in, free from editorial interference.
Cover-Up shows that the journalist's role is often a thankless and fruitless endeavor, but one that remains crucial for social change. Hersh has witnessed this firsthand over his six-decade career, which has given him perspective on the importance of journalism.
The documentary premiere at Venice was an emotional experience for Hersh, who claims he was embarrassed by the audience's applause. However, Poitras recalls a more tearful response from Hersh during the screening.
Hersh is known for being a thorn in the side of institutions, and his appearance at the film's premiere only reinforced this image. Despite this, his commitment to telling the stories he believes in remains unwavering.
... but let's be real, some folks might say he's got a bit of a temper 
. Still, I think it's crazy that we're having to rely on docs like Cover-Up to showcase the importance of journalism in today's climate 
. The fact that he's still breaking big stories after all these years is a testament to his dedication... but at what cost? 
. And yeah, I can see why the first amendment might be under threat - with the way information is spread nowadays, it's hard to know what's true and what's not 
. Hersh's Substack thing might be a good move for him, but I'm not sure it'll make a dent in the bigger picture... we need more support for journalists like him who are willing to take risks 
.
The journalism world needs more Seymour Hersh types - people who ain't afraid to rock the boat 
. I guess that's why they call him a maverick journalist 
... what do you guys think? Should we be celebrating journalists like Hersh or are they just making it harder for the rest of us to get our news straight 
. But at the same time, I think Hersh's decision to write on Substack is a great way for him to maintain his independence and cover stories he truly believes in 
. Maybe we can find a middle ground where journalists like Hersh can thrive while also ensuring that information spreads quickly and accurately 
. It's not an easy balance to strike, but I think it's worth trying 
. I mean, Seymour Hersh is like a modern-day hero or something - breaking stories left and right despite the odds being stacked against him 
I mean, it's all about clicks and views now, and people are more concerned with getting their names out there than actually telling the truth 
. Hersh's Substack thing is like, a breath of fresh air or something - at least he can write whatever he wants without some big corporation breathing down his neck 
.
- like they're the only ones who get to decide what's true and what's not. Newsflash: we all have an opinion, and sometimes it's the truth-tellers who just happen to be loud enough to be heard 
.
- journalism isn't about being liked or famous; it's about telling the stories that need to be told, no matter how hard it gets 
. And if we're not careful, we'll lose that.
. or r u just sayin that cuz hes all rebellious and stuff?
Man, Seymour Hersh's got some valid concerns about investigative journalism these days... like how it's super hard to get anyone to care about the truth anymore 
. As someone who values truth-telling, it's heartbreaking to think that a lot of journalists are struggling to get their work out there. Seymour Hersh is an example of someone who has dedicated his life to investigating and exposing important stories, despite the challenges he's faced along the way.
.
.
...i mean i get it we need accountability but sometimes u feel like journalists r just fightin against an uphill battle 
. Laura Poitras' direction does a great job of humanizing him without glossing over the imperfections. What really resonates with me though is how Hersh's commitment to journalism remains strong despite the challenges 
I mean, he's seen so much change in journalism, from when Vietnam was still a thing to how info spreads like wildfire on the internet now. It's wild.
.
.
- all fluff about Hersh's illustrious career, but where's the critique of his methods? The way he cherry-picks sources and spins stories to fit his narrative? It's like they're trying to sanitize him instead of shedding light on the darker side of journalism 
. He's got some harsh words for the system, talkin' 'bout gatekeepers and legacy media outlets just bein' too slow to respond 
