[bhaak]

> I won a Pulitzer Prize for international reporting for that work

Proof by authority?

> I’ve been told my stories were wrong, invented, outrageous for as long as I can remember

That doesn't mean that every story by him that is called wrong is right.

> What you’ll find here is, I hope, a reflection of that freedom.

Freedom doesn't equate to truth. On the internet everybody can claim everything.

Especially if you are drawing from anonymous sources. Nobody else can verify those. And can you be sure that you aren't used as a tool for disinformation?

[zdyn5]

>Proof by authority? Not sure how this “proof by authority” cynicism applies here. Those events are pretty well established by now and he won a Pulitzer for breaking the story in the face of coverup… isn’t that exactly what high-quality journalism should be? And be rewarded for? There might be an unseemly bragging tone but it doesn’t make it any less true. What’s next - Einstein’s Nobels are also proof by authority?

Relevant (accurate) past recognition should be taken into account as a prior when evaluating uncertain present claims. It doesn’t mean they’re automatically right, and evidence/arguments should be evaluated on their own merit as much as possible, but in the face of opaque fog of war, are you suggesting this journalist should be taken no more seriously than some rando off the street?

[bhaak]

The proof by authority criticism is for the implied "I've been right in the past (I even got awarded for that) therefore I must be right now as well".

> What’s next - Einstein’s Nobels are also proof by authority?

If you use them as an argument for Einstein's later work, then yes. Einstein's later work for example for black holes was completely wrong.

[coldtea]

>The proof by authority criticism is for the implied "I've been right in the past (I even got awarded for that) therefore I must be right now as well".

Or, you know, rather merely the implied:

"I'm just some random conspiracy theorist, some fresh of the bus aspiring journalist, or some blogger that got in over their head, I've got a proven track record of working with diffucult and covered/denied stories, being proven right, doing succesful investigate journalism, and bringing up major stories. Pulitzer level track record."

[zdyn5]

Good points and I mostly agree here… important to have healthy skepticism but I still don’t think previous well-deserved recognition should be deemed irrelevant in areas where trust plays a big factor (like where where anonymous sources can’t be verified).

If there are verifiable counter-claims/evidence then that’s where the action should be.

[coldtea]

>Proof by authority?

Knee-jerk reaction?

It's not offered as proof, it's offered in the standard way reputation works...

[bhaak]

The source for his latest story is nothing like the sources he used for the stories that earned him his reputation.

So I wouldn't call it a knee-jerk reaction when I consider what he says as basically being "trust me bro".

I would go even further and say that if his story was sound he wouldn't need to write a defense on why he's published it on Substack. If it were sound it wouldn't matter if he published it on Twitter or Substack or if he published it in the Playboy or The New York Times.

[coldtea]

>So I wouldn't call it a knee-jerk reaction when I consider what he says as basically being "trust me bro".

Well, in a Bayesian way, he has done a great deal to earn that trust. This is not just a "trust me bro" from some random bro, but a "trust me bro" from someone who has a proven track record as an investigative journalism. In some of the most important stories of the last 50 years, which he broke.

It's not like someone can just "take him for a ride" or is the kind who makes things up. And it's not like a journalist with experience like that just takes a source on blind faith.

While trust is not the same as irrefutable proof, trust on a proven track record goes a long way.

In the end, in the absense of proof, there's two sides to trust: a government caught lying again and again (on a story whose official line was nonsense to begin with), versus a guy who has caught them with their pants down again and again.

Still, I bet there will be proof too, and not that far in the future: perhaps just when it doesn't matter anymore, because "that's behind us now, let's focus on current stuff".

>I would go even further and say that if his story was sound he wouldn't need to write a defense on why he's published it on Substack.

He'd need a defense on why he's published on Substack anyway - whether the story is sound doesn't come into it.

He had to defend his stories hard, even when those were totally proven true, with ample proof, and published on major respectable newspapers. They still denied him with BS (the government and friendly pro-state press) until they couldn't spin it anymore.

So to publish it on Substack, in today's climate? He'd definitely need a defense.