15 ms·

Why doesn’t buzzfeed split the brand between buzzfeed and buzzfeed news. Clearly, as evidenced by these comments here, buzzfeed is doing massive damage to the r

Why doesn’t buzzfeed split the brand between buzzfeed and buzzfeed news. Clearly, as evidenced by these comments here, buzzfeed is doing massive damage to the reputation of the news section; and I highly doubt the target market of the non news section is there because of their competent news half.

AmericanChopper 8y ago
Based on recent events, it looks like buzzfeed news doesn’t need any help when it comes to damaging its own reputation.
- briandear 8y ago
  Why is this being downvoted? They publish a false story, corroborated by nobody, and that is supposed to help the reputation? And no, “unnamed sources” aren’t corroboration. If these stories were about Obama, there’d be a lot more howling, but given it’s Trump, the attitude is that any story that confirms anyone’s bias is fine, regardless of truth. It’s disgusting and has made journalism into a tribal farce.
  - favorited 8y ago
    > And no, “unnamed sources” aren’t corroboration. Yes, they are. Unnamed sources have brought down institutions ranging from the Nixon administration to the Boston archdiocese.
    - CobrastanJorji 8y ago
      You're both right. Unnamed sources have indeed released big stories on multiple occasions and are therefore useful, but citing them definitely discounts an article's reliability, since neither the reader nor any other news sources can seek clarification or verification.
  - threeseed 8y ago
    They are a serious journalism organisation so you can assume that they did have multiple sources (which they stated they did). And yes unnamed sources are corroboration just as they have been during every major news story that has ever broken. And pretty sure journalism started to become a tribal force about 20 years ago when Fox News launched. It is the same approach Murdoch took with papers in the UK and here in Australia.
    - AmericanChopper 8y ago
      It’s not that they didn’t name the source, it’s that they (by their own admission) didn’t corroborate the story. They had an unnamed source who claimed documentary evidence existed, but nobody at buzzfeed saw any of it. Combine that with Buzzfeeds pretty obvious slant on the issue, and Mueller’s refutation of the story, and it comes out looking terrible for Buzzfeed.
    - chrisseaton 8y ago
      > They are a serious journalism organisation BuzzFeed is? I only ever see them publish silly top-ten lists and click-bait articles.
      - k_sh 8y ago
        "BuzzFeed launches a new website for its real journalism": https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/18/buzzfeed-news/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/18/buzzfeed-news/ "Buzzfeed News adds a Pulitzer winner and top Pentagon correspondent to its staff": http://www.niemanlab.org/reading/buzzfeed-news-adds-a-pulitzer-winner-and-top-pentagon-correspondent-to-its-staff/ http://www.niemanlab.org/reading/buzzfeed-news-adds-a-pulitz...
        chrisseaton 8y ago
        Seems like a really bizarre brand to re-use like that. BuzzFeed stands for everything that’s bad and manipulative in journalism in my experience. Like building a restaurant chain reusing your sewage company brand. Why did they do it?
  - nopriorarrests 8y ago
    This is being downvoted (as well as your own comment) is because american culture war between red and blue tribes continues unabated, and Buzzfeed, to quote FDR himself, "may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch". And it sucks to lose someone on your side.
    - threeseed 8y ago
      I downvoted it because attacking unnamed sources makes no sense as it is the foundation of modern day journalism. Not everyone is willing to go on the record. It has nothing to do with tribalism or left/right politics. And everything to do with defending journalism in all its forms.
      - arduanika 8y ago
        > modern day journalism How's that working out for you?
    - fzeroracer 8y ago
      It's being downvoted (along with your comment) because not only is it explicitly against HN guidelines but it's also heavily mischaracterizing journalism and how it's performed. Criticize Buzzfeed all you want, but protecting sources from political retribution is a core foundation of proper journalism and many unnamed sources have taken down large groups and institutions.
      - jteppinette 8y ago
        I bet those unnamed sources had evidence though.
    - pstuart 8y ago
      > american culture war between red and blue tribes continues unabated Not unabated, but at an accelerated pace. Social media has now been weaponized and we are approaching civil war levels of hostility. I think it's not an even split. The right is being conditioned to hate the left to a degree that is terrifying. Check out the propaganda that the NRA puts out. It is "Divide and Conquer 101" The majority of the liberal commentary I register is more puzzlement, sadness, and fear (guns, guns, guns, baby!). I would love to have dialog across the aisle but it seems impossible now. I can acknowledge plenty of "liberal failures" but that is a one way street.
  - untog 8y ago
    There's already a lot of howling about it. This thread is full of it! And in any case, it's an unfinished story. BuzzFeed stand by their reporting and have asked the special counsel to clarify exactly what parts they are disputing (they did not say the entire story was false). So a little early to say it's a "false story".
    - nomel 8y ago
      News should contain truth. None of it should be false. If they’re printing things that are not verified to be true, then it’s not news, it’s rumors. The whole story doesn’t need to be false, presenting rumors as fact is enough to be considered poor journalism. They shouldn’t be discounted, but it reflects poorly, and this lay-off could suggest there has been pressure that compromised their integrity.
      - untog 8y ago
        But they did confirm it... with their sources. How else would you have them confirm it? If the special counsel doesn't respond to requests for verification then do they just... never publish? Sounds like a great way for the guilty to hide stuff.
        AmericanChopper 8y ago
        They didn’t corroborate the testimony. Nobody at buzzfeed has seen the supposed evidence. Buzzfeed isn’t asking us to trust them (which would already be dubious), they’re asking us to trust some unnamed source (and trust it over Mueller’s refutation of the story). That’s tabloid level rumour printing.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        nomel 8y ago
        > never publish? There's always a risk for stories from indirect sources. If they publish something that's incorrect from these sources, they risk losing some credibility. This is how it should be and always has been with news organizations. I'm not sure what a sane alternative is here.
- spamizbad 8y ago
  Huh? Their story was cooroborated by Rudy Giuliani before he clumsily walked it back. Then they proceeded to show documents supporting the claim that Trump had plans to build A Trump Tower in Moscow. Mueller may have said it wasn’t true but it’s not uncommon for law enforcement to make comments like that about ongoing investigations.
pvg 8y ago
as evidenced by these comments here HN comments are probably poor evidence on which to base corporate or branding strategy.
- parthdesai 8y ago
  remember the famous "why would one ever need dropbox?", meanwhile my mom has trouble figuring out importing contacts in her Galaxy S8.
- hobofan 8y ago
  Every time (n = ~20) I've told a new person about a well researched BuzzfeedNews article, I got essentially laughed at.
  - nvr219 8y ago
    And rightly so
  - pvg 8y ago
    Well, I don't know how good of a focus group the 20-odd people you've told about Buzzfeed News are. I do know that every HN thread on the topic of journalism attracts a lot of HN users who have very strong, highly unsubstantiated views about it.
- ummonk 8y ago
  Certainly, but you'll find the same pattern with any audience. Buzzfeed is a relatively recognizable name, and almost no one knows that it has a semi-serious news version.
- asdff 8y ago
  Go to reddit, go to any other forum, go to anywhere on the internet where people discuss other websites, and you will find the same sentiment regarding buzzfeed. Buzzfeed even gets poked fun of in Bojack Horseman, although not by direct name. For a while it was like a meme how low effort their listacles were, and it will probably take a new name to divorce that image from the branding.
stcredzero 8y ago
Clearly, as evidenced by these comments here, buzzfeed is doing massive damage to the reputation of the news section A few days ago, an independent journalist I like cited Buzzfeed News as an organization with some good journalists in it. I was very surprised, because BuzzFeed strikes me as a garbage site that doesn't care if it's destroying the public discourse with outrage bait. From my perspective, BuzzFeed clearly did massive damage to the reputation of BuzzFeed News.
- partiallypro 8y ago
  and BuzzFeed News hasn't exactly helped itself lately
- untog 8y ago
  Then you're misinformed. BuzzFeed does plenty of clickbaity quiz things, but it doesn't traffic in outrage last time I checked. And the news division is Pulitzer nominated.
  - kobiguru 8y ago
    > news division is Pulitzer nominated that's a load of bull crap. Being "Pulitzer nominated" does not make you good. As someone pointed out in the same thread, Dar Speigel journalist faked everything and got a ton of awards for his reporting. Do you think he works for next, would mention that he is fake news and not the awards - i bet it would be the opposite. One of Buzzfeed biggest blunders about the Muller Investigation made every news source that cited it look like "fake news" this month. All done for sensationalizing and made the article more clickbaity.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - nomel 8y ago
    I think that’s his point. The branding is causing the average person to be misinformed. I think most will agree that “Buzzfeed” is trash but “Buzzfeed News” is not. The confusion is understandable. Adding a word to a branding doesn’t usually suggest a complete opposite approach. Let’s try a few examples to see how understandable it is: “Cracked News”, “Walmart Luxury”, “College Humor University”.
rtpg 8y ago
I dunno, I feel like people who make this comment are talking about some mythical person who pays enough attention to get the buzzfeed report, yet who isn't paying enough attention to know that buzzfeed news is a thing. like "Well _I_ know the difference but the random person does not and gets confused!" These sort of circular meta-discussions in our politics get us so far from the reality that it makes it hard to know what people actually think
- mastazi 8y ago
  I have been following Buzzfeed for years (the Try Guys, Quinta B., Ashley, Buzzfeed Australia etc.) and I had no idea that Buzzfeed had a "serious news" arm until reading this HN thread. Until 10 minutes ago, I had the impression that the news section was just clickbaity stuff like "10 things that blah blah blah... number 6 will leave you speechless", now I just learned that they were considered for a Pulitzer.
  - anigbrowl 8y ago
    You can't have been following it very closely then, so ¯\(°_o)/¯
    - mastazi 8y ago
      I don't know what's your definition of "closely", but for a while I was watching most new videos they would put out. I guess it comes down to Buzzfeed using a lot of social media channels (YouTube, Facebook etc.) which is not a good thing in terms of discoverability of the other things they do (e.g. news). Basically I would follow the YT channels or the FB pages and rarely if ever visit their website. Edit: not sure why you're being downvoted since yours was a legitimate objection
  - rtpg 8y ago
    I guess my point is that when Buzzfeed News publishes "Trump ordered Cohen to lie", a person consuming this article isn't going to be "oh this is Buzzfeed so it's just some joke". They might expect the reporting to be done in a silly manner (see splinter news), but I don't think that the credibility hit would be more than if it were some other website. The credibility line is basically "newspaper" and "everything else".
grey-sunshine 8y ago
Buzzfeed news, the oxymoron of the decade.

AmericanChopper 8y ago

Based on recent events, it looks like buzzfeed news doesn’t need any help when it comes to damaging its own reputation.

briandear 8y ago
Why is this being downvoted? They publish a false story, corroborated by nobody, and that is supposed to help the reputation? And no, “unnamed sources” aren’t corroboration. If these stories were about Obama, there’d be a lot more howling, but given it’s Trump, the attitude is that any story that confirms anyone’s bias is fine, regardless of truth. It’s disgusting and has made journalism into a tribal farce.
- favorited 8y ago
  > And no, “unnamed sources” aren’t corroboration. Yes, they are. Unnamed sources have brought down institutions ranging from the Nixon administration to the Boston archdiocese.
  - CobrastanJorji 8y ago
    You're both right. Unnamed sources have indeed released big stories on multiple occasions and are therefore useful, but citing them definitely discounts an article's reliability, since neither the reader nor any other news sources can seek clarification or verification.
- threeseed 8y ago
  They are a serious journalism organisation so you can assume that they did have multiple sources (which they stated they did). And yes unnamed sources are corroboration just as they have been during every major news story that has ever broken. And pretty sure journalism started to become a tribal force about 20 years ago when Fox News launched. It is the same approach Murdoch took with papers in the UK and here in Australia.
  - AmericanChopper 8y ago
    It’s not that they didn’t name the source, it’s that they (by their own admission) didn’t corroborate the story. They had an unnamed source who claimed documentary evidence existed, but nobody at buzzfeed saw any of it. Combine that with Buzzfeeds pretty obvious slant on the issue, and Mueller’s refutation of the story, and it comes out looking terrible for Buzzfeed.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    > They are a serious journalism organisation BuzzFeed is? I only ever see them publish silly top-ten lists and click-bait articles.
    - k_sh 8y ago
      "BuzzFeed launches a new website for its real journalism": https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/18/buzzfeed-news/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/18/buzzfeed-news/ "Buzzfeed News adds a Pulitzer winner and top Pentagon correspondent to its staff": http://www.niemanlab.org/reading/buzzfeed-news-adds-a-pulitzer-winner-and-top-pentagon-correspondent-to-its-staff/ http://www.niemanlab.org/reading/buzzfeed-news-adds-a-pulitz...
      - chrisseaton 8y ago
        Seems like a really bizarre brand to re-use like that. BuzzFeed stands for everything that’s bad and manipulative in journalism in my experience. Like building a restaurant chain reusing your sewage company brand. Why did they do it?
- nopriorarrests 8y ago
  This is being downvoted (as well as your own comment) is because american culture war between red and blue tribes continues unabated, and Buzzfeed, to quote FDR himself, "may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch". And it sucks to lose someone on your side.
  - threeseed 8y ago
    I downvoted it because attacking unnamed sources makes no sense as it is the foundation of modern day journalism. Not everyone is willing to go on the record. It has nothing to do with tribalism or left/right politics. And everything to do with defending journalism in all its forms.
    - arduanika 8y ago
      > modern day journalism How's that working out for you?
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    It's being downvoted (along with your comment) because not only is it explicitly against HN guidelines but it's also heavily mischaracterizing journalism and how it's performed. Criticize Buzzfeed all you want, but protecting sources from political retribution is a core foundation of proper journalism and many unnamed sources have taken down large groups and institutions.
    - jteppinette 8y ago
      I bet those unnamed sources had evidence though.
  - pstuart 8y ago
    > american culture war between red and blue tribes continues unabated Not unabated, but at an accelerated pace. Social media has now been weaponized and we are approaching civil war levels of hostility. I think it's not an even split. The right is being conditioned to hate the left to a degree that is terrifying. Check out the propaganda that the NRA puts out. It is "Divide and Conquer 101" The majority of the liberal commentary I register is more puzzlement, sadness, and fear (guns, guns, guns, baby!). I would love to have dialog across the aisle but it seems impossible now. I can acknowledge plenty of "liberal failures" but that is a one way street.
- untog 8y ago
  There's already a lot of howling about it. This thread is full of it! And in any case, it's an unfinished story. BuzzFeed stand by their reporting and have asked the special counsel to clarify exactly what parts they are disputing (they did not say the entire story was false). So a little early to say it's a "false story".
  - nomel 8y ago
    News should contain truth. None of it should be false. If they’re printing things that are not verified to be true, then it’s not news, it’s rumors. The whole story doesn’t need to be false, presenting rumors as fact is enough to be considered poor journalism. They shouldn’t be discounted, but it reflects poorly, and this lay-off could suggest there has been pressure that compromised their integrity.
    - untog 8y ago
      But they did confirm it... with their sources. How else would you have them confirm it? If the special counsel doesn't respond to requests for verification then do they just... never publish? Sounds like a great way for the guilty to hide stuff.
      - AmericanChopper 8y ago
        They didn’t corroborate the testimony. Nobody at buzzfeed has seen the supposed evidence. Buzzfeed isn’t asking us to trust them (which would already be dubious), they’re asking us to trust some unnamed source (and trust it over Mueller’s refutation of the story). That’s tabloid level rumour printing.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - nomel 8y ago
        > never publish? There's always a risk for stories from indirect sources. If they publish something that's incorrect from these sources, they risk losing some credibility. This is how it should be and always has been with news organizations. I'm not sure what a sane alternative is here.
spamizbad 8y ago
Huh? Their story was cooroborated by Rudy Giuliani before he clumsily walked it back. Then they proceeded to show documents supporting the claim that Trump had plans to build A Trump Tower in Moscow. Mueller may have said it wasn’t true but it’s not uncommon for law enforcement to make comments like that about ongoing investigations.

pvg 8y ago

as evidenced by these comments here HN comments are probably poor evidence on which to base corporate or branding strategy.

parthdesai 8y ago
remember the famous "why would one ever need dropbox?", meanwhile my mom has trouble figuring out importing contacts in her Galaxy S8.
hobofan 8y ago
Every time (n = ~20) I've told a new person about a well researched BuzzfeedNews article, I got essentially laughed at.
- nvr219 8y ago
  And rightly so
- pvg 8y ago
  Well, I don't know how good of a focus group the 20-odd people you've told about Buzzfeed News are. I do know that every HN thread on the topic of journalism attracts a lot of HN users who have very strong, highly unsubstantiated views about it.
ummonk 8y ago
Certainly, but you'll find the same pattern with any audience. Buzzfeed is a relatively recognizable name, and almost no one knows that it has a semi-serious news version.
asdff 8y ago
Go to reddit, go to any other forum, go to anywhere on the internet where people discuss other websites, and you will find the same sentiment regarding buzzfeed. Buzzfeed even gets poked fun of in Bojack Horseman, although not by direct name. For a while it was like a meme how low effort their listacles were, and it will probably take a new name to divorce that image from the branding.

stcredzero 8y ago

Clearly, as evidenced by these comments here, buzzfeed is doing massive damage to the reputation of the news section A few days ago, an independent journalist I like cited Buzzfeed News as an organization with some good journalists in it. I was very surprised, because BuzzFeed strikes me as a garbage site that doesn't care if it's destroying the public discourse with outrage bait. From my perspective, BuzzFeed clearly did massive damage to the reputation of BuzzFeed News.

partiallypro 8y ago
and BuzzFeed News hasn't exactly helped itself lately
untog 8y ago
Then you're misinformed. BuzzFeed does plenty of clickbaity quiz things, but it doesn't traffic in outrage last time I checked. And the news division is Pulitzer nominated.
- kobiguru 8y ago
  > news division is Pulitzer nominated that's a load of bull crap. Being "Pulitzer nominated" does not make you good. As someone pointed out in the same thread, Dar Speigel journalist faked everything and got a ton of awards for his reporting. Do you think he works for next, would mention that he is fake news and not the awards - i bet it would be the opposite. One of Buzzfeed biggest blunders about the Muller Investigation made every news source that cited it look like "fake news" this month. All done for sensationalizing and made the article more clickbaity.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- nomel 8y ago
  I think that’s his point. The branding is causing the average person to be misinformed. I think most will agree that “Buzzfeed” is trash but “Buzzfeed News” is not. The confusion is understandable. Adding a word to a branding doesn’t usually suggest a complete opposite approach. Let’s try a few examples to see how understandable it is: “Cracked News”, “Walmart Luxury”, “College Humor University”.

rtpg 8y ago

I dunno, I feel like people who make this comment are talking about some mythical person who pays enough attention to get the buzzfeed report, yet who isn't paying enough attention to know that buzzfeed news is a thing. like "Well _I_ know the difference but the random person does not and gets confused!" These sort of circular meta-discussions in our politics get us so far from the reality that it makes it hard to know what people actually think

mastazi 8y ago
I have been following Buzzfeed for years (the Try Guys, Quinta B., Ashley, Buzzfeed Australia etc.) and I had no idea that Buzzfeed had a "serious news" arm until reading this HN thread. Until 10 minutes ago, I had the impression that the news section was just clickbaity stuff like "10 things that blah blah blah... number 6 will leave you speechless", now I just learned that they were considered for a Pulitzer.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  You can't have been following it very closely then, so ¯\(°_o)/¯
  - mastazi 8y ago
    I don't know what's your definition of "closely", but for a while I was watching most new videos they would put out. I guess it comes down to Buzzfeed using a lot of social media channels (YouTube, Facebook etc.) which is not a good thing in terms of discoverability of the other things they do (e.g. news). Basically I would follow the YT channels or the FB pages and rarely if ever visit their website. Edit: not sure why you're being downvoted since yours was a legitimate objection
- rtpg 8y ago
  I guess my point is that when Buzzfeed News publishes "Trump ordered Cohen to lie", a person consuming this article isn't going to be "oh this is Buzzfeed so it's just some joke". They might expect the reporting to be done in a silly manner (see splinter news), but I don't think that the credibility hit would be more than if it were some other website. The credibility line is basically "newspaper" and "everything else".

grey-sunshine 8y ago

Buzzfeed news, the oxymoron of the decade.