8 ms·

I don't work for them, nor do I have a financial interest in them. What I do have is a personal interest in the continued existence of the only journalism outfi

I don't work for them, nor do I have a financial interest in them. What I do have is a personal interest in the continued existence of the only journalism outfit that's actually managed to earn a recurring subscription¹ from me due to the quality of their articles. > I mean just go to their website. Do you seriously call them a proper, trustworthy news source? What's wrong with https://www.buzzfeednews.com/ https://www.buzzfeednews.com/? It looks perfectly fine to me. ¹Also in their favor is the fact that BuzzFeed News doesn't have any sort of paywall. The only benefit I get from a subscription is knowing that I'm helping to support good journalism.

m0zg 8y ago
Let's start with the fact that there's a fake news story in the upper left corner debunked by Special Counsel Mueller's staff a few days ago. :-)
- eridius 8y ago
  No it wasn't. They said it "wasn't accurate" but declined to specify. Most people seem to think this means there are inaccuracies to the story, but the overall thrust of the piece is still true.
  - m0zg 8y ago
    How about another one: the "pee pee" dossier which was also released by Buzzfeed. Do "most people" still "seem to think" it's true or has it been discredited enough by now?
    - eridius 8y ago
      The dossier which BuzzFeed did not create themselves? I largely skipped news coverage of this besides vaguely knowing of its existence, but AIUI BuzzFeed's rationale is that it was newsworthy (being as it was a document that was circulating at the highest levels of the US government and media). Incidentally, it seems that at least parts of the dossier have now been corroborated, and nothing has been disproven. There's still large parts of it that are in question of course, but I fail to see how it's been "discredited", it's merely been criticized. Feel free to argue that BuzzFeed was incorrect in releasing a dossier full of raw intelligence before it had been corroborated. That's certainly something one can argue, and many people would agree (but not everybody). But that's not the argument you're making.
      - m0zg 8y ago
        I'm old enough to remember the olden days where the onus was on the news outlet to do some basic fact checking and corroboration _before_ publishing stuff.
        pulisse 8y ago
        BuzzFeed was explicit when they published the dossier that it was raw and uncorroborated. They didn't claims its contents to be true, or base other assertions on it. They made the raw document itself available for public download. At the time, the dossier was disseminating through government and media circles, and being referred to in a lot of news and commentary, but the public had no access to it. The point of making the document available was to pull the curtain on that kind of NY/DC politics/media insiderism.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

m0zg 8y ago

Let's start with the fact that there's a fake news story in the upper left corner debunked by Special Counsel Mueller's staff a few days ago. :-)

eridius 8y ago
No it wasn't. They said it "wasn't accurate" but declined to specify. Most people seem to think this means there are inaccuracies to the story, but the overall thrust of the piece is still true.
- m0zg 8y ago
  How about another one: the "pee pee" dossier which was also released by Buzzfeed. Do "most people" still "seem to think" it's true or has it been discredited enough by now?
  - eridius 8y ago
    The dossier which BuzzFeed did not create themselves? I largely skipped news coverage of this besides vaguely knowing of its existence, but AIUI BuzzFeed's rationale is that it was newsworthy (being as it was a document that was circulating at the highest levels of the US government and media). Incidentally, it seems that at least parts of the dossier have now been corroborated, and nothing has been disproven. There's still large parts of it that are in question of course, but I fail to see how it's been "discredited", it's merely been criticized. Feel free to argue that BuzzFeed was incorrect in releasing a dossier full of raw intelligence before it had been corroborated. That's certainly something one can argue, and many people would agree (but not everybody). But that's not the argument you're making.
    - m0zg 8y ago
      I'm old enough to remember the olden days where the onus was on the news outlet to do some basic fact checking and corroboration _before_ publishing stuff.
      - pulisse 8y ago
        BuzzFeed was explicit when they published the dossier that it was raw and uncorroborated. They didn't claims its contents to be true, or base other assertions on it. They made the raw document itself available for public download. At the time, the dossier was disseminating through government and media circles, and being referred to in a lot of news and commentary, but the public had no access to it. The point of making the document available was to pull the curtain on that kind of NY/DC politics/media insiderism.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]