4 ms·

Makes me wonder if they've had difficulties selling their work as credible to the general public, considering what the BuzzFeed name entails.

by sandov 8y ago

vermilingua 8y ago
I absolutely discounted and avoided BuzzFeedNews work for the longest time, until I accidentally read one of their investigative pieces [1] and was blown away. I almost even think it vindicates the relentless stream of garbage from their main site, if it allows them to fund such stellar journalism. [1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/sheerafrenkel/fake-news-spreads-trump-around-the-world
- testvox 8y ago
  Yeah I think their news and investigative journalism are top notch https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rosalindadams/intake https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rosalindadams/intake
- malvosenior 8y ago
  The thing is that Buzzfeed cannot be trusted to write about topics like this. They have an explicit and overt anti-Trump bias and this article is suspect because of that. Really, any mainstream news organization using the term "fake news" and suggesting it impacted the 2016 election cannot be trusted. It was Buzzfeed News that released the unsubstantiated Steele Dossier and more recently unsubstantiated and refuted claims against Michael Choen. They are not journalists, they are activists.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    Calling the Steele Dossier unsubstantiated is just objectively wrong considering we've seen many claims within it bear fruit over time. There's a reason why many agencies take it very seriously. What exactly is your bias here?
    - malvosenior 8y ago
      It's not objectively wrong, even the author himself says only 70-90% of it is accurate and opinions go downhill from there. You can see for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier#Varied_reactions_about_veracity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier#V...
      - fzeroracer 8y ago
        Now you're intentionally moving the goalposts. The author says it's only 70-90% accurate because you cannot ever expect an intelligence dossier to not be potentially contaminated by other agents or sources looking to intentionally provide false or conflicting information. That does not render the dossier unsubstantiated as you claimed because you have to evaluate the merit of each claim and use it as an avenue for further investigation. Which is exactly what the Wikipedia article you linked says: in that many claims have proven to be true over time despite some disinformation. So can you tell me again what exactly makes it unsubstantiated?
        malvosenior 8y ago
        Actually it's you who moved the goal posts. I said it's unsubstantiated, provided a link with examples and now you want to debate what level of unfounded rumor a report must contain before we can say it's unsubstantiated (>30% is enough imo).
        fzeroracer 8y ago
        You provided a link that proves the opposite. The fact is that the Steele Dossier has mostly credible claims, many of which has gone under investigation and proven to be truthful. To claim otherwise is to lie and/or deny the reality of the dossier. You can't talk about bias while also denying the facts.
        malvosenior 8y ago
        On January 11, 2017, Newsweek published a list of "13 things that don't add up" in the dossier, writing that it was a "strange mix of the amateur and the insightful" and stating that it "contains lots of Kremlin-related gossip that could indeed be, as the author claims, from deep insiders—or equally gleaned" from Russian newspapers and blogs.[177] Former UK ambassador to Russia Sir Tony Brenton stated that certain aspects of the dossier were inconsistent with British intelligence's understanding of how the Kremlin works, commenting: "I've seen quite a lot of intelligence on Russia, and there are some things in [the dossier] which look pretty shaky."
baud147258 8y ago
This guardian article is relevant: Blend of stupidity and seriousness does BuzzFeed no favours https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/dec/17/buzzfeed-city-confidence-down-revenue-slips-bbc-news-head-fran-unsworth https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/dec/17/buzzfeed-city-...
- malvosenior 8y ago
  It definitely doesn't do it any favors (although many people will debate the quality of the "serious" side of Buzzfeed) but it's too ironic hearing this from The Guardian, a media platform many people avoid due to an overwhelming amount of stupidity it has published.
  - baud147258 8y ago
    Also the Guardian article is from December 2017, so the writing has been on the wall for quite some time. > an overwhelming amount of stupidity [the Guardian] has published I think on BuzzFeed's part, at least the stupidity is intentional.

Makes me wonder if they've had difficulties selling their work as credible to the general public, considering what the BuzzFeed name entails.

by sandov 8y ago

Makes me wonder if they've had difficulties selling their work as credible to the general public, considering what the BuzzFeed name entails.

vermilingua 8y ago

I absolutely discounted and avoided BuzzFeedNews work for the longest time, until I accidentally read one of their investigative pieces [1] and was blown away. I almost even think it vindicates the relentless stream of garbage from their main site, if it allows them to fund such stellar journalism. [1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/sheerafrenkel/fake-news-spreads-trump-around-the-world

testvox 8y ago
Yeah I think their news and investigative journalism are top notch https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rosalindadams/intake https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rosalindadams/intake
malvosenior 8y ago
The thing is that Buzzfeed cannot be trusted to write about topics like this. They have an explicit and overt anti-Trump bias and this article is suspect because of that. Really, any mainstream news organization using the term "fake news" and suggesting it impacted the 2016 election cannot be trusted. It was Buzzfeed News that released the unsubstantiated Steele Dossier and more recently unsubstantiated and refuted claims against Michael Choen. They are not journalists, they are activists.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  Calling the Steele Dossier unsubstantiated is just objectively wrong considering we've seen many claims within it bear fruit over time. There's a reason why many agencies take it very seriously. What exactly is your bias here?
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    It's not objectively wrong, even the author himself says only 70-90% of it is accurate and opinions go downhill from there. You can see for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier#Varied_reactions_about_veracity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier#V...
    - fzeroracer 8y ago
      Now you're intentionally moving the goalposts. The author says it's only 70-90% accurate because you cannot ever expect an intelligence dossier to not be potentially contaminated by other agents or sources looking to intentionally provide false or conflicting information. That does not render the dossier unsubstantiated as you claimed because you have to evaluate the merit of each claim and use it as an avenue for further investigation. Which is exactly what the Wikipedia article you linked says: in that many claims have proven to be true over time despite some disinformation. So can you tell me again what exactly makes it unsubstantiated?
      - malvosenior 8y ago
        Actually it's you who moved the goal posts. I said it's unsubstantiated, provided a link with examples and now you want to debate what level of unfounded rumor a report must contain before we can say it's unsubstantiated (>30% is enough imo).
        fzeroracer 8y ago
        You provided a link that proves the opposite. The fact is that the Steele Dossier has mostly credible claims, many of which has gone under investigation and proven to be truthful. To claim otherwise is to lie and/or deny the reality of the dossier. You can't talk about bias while also denying the facts.
        malvosenior 8y ago
        On January 11, 2017, Newsweek published a list of "13 things that don't add up" in the dossier, writing that it was a "strange mix of the amateur and the insightful" and stating that it "contains lots of Kremlin-related gossip that could indeed be, as the author claims, from deep insiders—or equally gleaned" from Russian newspapers and blogs.[177] Former UK ambassador to Russia Sir Tony Brenton stated that certain aspects of the dossier were inconsistent with British intelligence's understanding of how the Kremlin works, commenting: "I've seen quite a lot of intelligence on Russia, and there are some things in [the dossier] which look pretty shaky."

baud147258 8y ago

This guardian article is relevant: Blend of stupidity and seriousness does BuzzFeed no favours https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/dec/17/buzzfeed-city-confidence-down-revenue-slips-bbc-news-head-fran-unsworth https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/dec/17/buzzfeed-city-...

malvosenior 8y ago
It definitely doesn't do it any favors (although many people will debate the quality of the "serious" side of Buzzfeed) but it's too ironic hearing this from The Guardian, a media platform many people avoid due to an overwhelming amount of stupidity it has published.
- baud147258 8y ago
  Also the Guardian article is from December 2017, so the writing has been on the wall for quite some time. > an overwhelming amount of stupidity [the Guardian] has published I think on BuzzFeed's part, at least the stupidity is intentional.