What "hackery" means

Want to know what "hackery" means? You could look up the etymology of "hack", complicatedly derived from Hackney.

Or you could read this article on Sy Hersh by Chris Suellentrop, which I came across via John Cole.

My comment on Cole's post:

[This article uses] a remarkably broad definition of "lie" - if Hersh says has a photograph of an event, who knows if it happened? Surely he's lying. When he lies to trick a lawyer into telling the truth - why, that shows he's a liar generally. When he changes irrelevant details to protect people - he's a liar. When he makes a mistake and admits it publicly - he's a liar. When he says something he knows to an every-day standard of certainty but can't put the last bell-and-whistle on it to reach his written standard, and when he gets that bell-and-whistle and prints essentially the story described, or when he doesn't get the last detail and can't write the story, he's a liar.

Certainly Suellentrop mentions Hersh's remarkable record of scoops - but that's a matter of public record, a bow to "balance" while the hand loosens the dagger in its sheath. And it's true that there's a discussion to be had about reporters saying things on camera that they can't get into print (David Okrent[!] paging Judith Miller) - but that's not the point of this piece.


Then read this "more in sadness than in anger" attack on Kos and Armstrong by Chris Suellentrop. His case against Armstrong, who quit blogging when working for Dean, is just laughable yes buttery; his case against Kos is woefully credulous of or disingenuous about Teachout's assertions and willfully ignorant of or maliciously insinuating about Kos's separation of his private consultancy and public fundraising.


Then read this attack on Wesley Clark by Chris Suellentrop. Don't miss the amusing fine print linkage at the bottom of the article.


I haven't read the book in question, but the anti-Dean excerpting by Chris Suellentrop noted here seems to be another example.