5 ms·
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 ask
by 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 agoNews 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 agoBut 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 agoThey 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.