7 ms·

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 c

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?
      - adventured 8y ago
        Venture capitalists & NBCUniversal / Comcast have vaporized half a billion dollars on a low-quality click-bait service that is inevitably going bankrupt (or sold for pennies on the dollar of its former valuation). The small group within BuzzFeed that actually produces high quality journalism is the only serious value left in the entire company. That's why they kept it attached to the core brand. If they had separated it off, there's nothing left of the $500 million of VC and no future to the company. The high quality separated off unit would be worth a small fraction of the former BuzzFeed valuation. It'll probably be sold to Comcast for $50m a minute before it goes under.
    - spikels 8y ago
      That Pulitzer winner is Anthony Cormier, the author of the “bombshell” story Mueller said was false. Either the Pulitzeris not all it’s cracked up to be or Buzzfeed selects the worst - likely both.
- jrnichols 8y ago
  Then again, so did Bloomberg when they claimed that there was some super secret chip on servers sold to Apple/etc that sent data back to China.
- Solar19 8y ago
  You really only see this coming from the right / Fox News?
  - threeseed 8y ago
    Of course not. It merely started with Fox News. And Murdoch have been quite upfront in interviews over the last 2 decades that this is what they intended. They firmly established themselves as a right-wing station and pushed everyone else to the left.
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.

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?
    - adventured 8y ago
      Venture capitalists & NBCUniversal / Comcast have vaporized half a billion dollars on a low-quality click-bait service that is inevitably going bankrupt (or sold for pennies on the dollar of its former valuation). The small group within BuzzFeed that actually produces high quality journalism is the only serious value left in the entire company. That's why they kept it attached to the core brand. If they had separated it off, there's nothing left of the $500 million of VC and no future to the company. The high quality separated off unit would be worth a small fraction of the former BuzzFeed valuation. It'll probably be sold to Comcast for $50m a minute before it goes under.
  - spikels 8y ago
    That Pulitzer winner is Anthony Cormier, the author of the “bombshell” story Mueller said was false. Either the Pulitzeris not all it’s cracked up to be or Buzzfeed selects the worst - likely both.
jrnichols 8y ago
Then again, so did Bloomberg when they claimed that there was some super secret chip on servers sold to Apple/etc that sent data back to China.
Solar19 8y ago
You really only see this coming from the right / Fox News?
- threeseed 8y ago
  Of course not. It merely started with Fox News. And Murdoch have been quite upfront in interviews over the last 2 decades that this is what they intended. They firmly established themselves as a right-wing station and pushed everyone else to the left.

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.