9 ms·

BuzzFeed has an investigative news group[0] that is separate from the clickbait they got famous for. They publish articles closer to propublica than top 10 list

BuzzFeed has an investigative news group[0] that is separate from the clickbait they got famous for. They publish articles closer to propublica than top 10 lists. [0] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/investigations https://www.buzzfeednews.com/investigations

Fellshard 7y ago
And yet have been caught publishing some of the most overt lies of the last couple years, while buckling down on it. I keep seeing people try to defend them here, but they have already ruined any credibility they have both by their association and their behavior. It's not worth it; find a better institution to defend.
- neuronic 7y ago
  What organization is really even credible anymore? In Germany, I liked to read the SPIEGEL magazine (not Spiegel Online, that's half a step before boulevard) until the Claas Relotius case happened [1]. They tried to save face and apologized etc. etc. but who says that just fixes it? The Internet that has developed since the first ad-monetization almost demands, and at least incentivizes, shady behavior if you want to economically survive as an information processor - news outlet or others. Many of us on HN would gladly buy premium for something they enjoy but I fear the vast majority of people wants everything for "free". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claas_Relotius#Fabrication_of_stories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claas_Relotius#Fabrication_of_...
  - Fellshard 7y ago
    Agreed. Plus, print is also harder to quietly modify; silent post-hoc 'corrections' to online articles that wildly change the article's conclusions are the norm, with no rigorous path to present those changes to those who consumed the article previously. A dedicated print subscription forces the printer to weigh the consequences of correcting an error more heavily, and a regular reader of a subscribed publication can be presented with corrected errors on the front page of each day's edition. (Not that any of this would happen in print, either; and not that this is impossible with internet media; but rather that the natural consequences of the print medium pushes heavily towards a different set of behaviours. I doubt anyone would subscribe to an RSS feed of errors.)
  - davidw 7y ago
    > What organization is really even credible anymore Most of the major newspapers in the US are fairly credible, despite having issues like 'both-sidesism' and not doing well with asymmetry. 'Credible' doesn't mean "no mistakes". It means they own them and apologize for them. The Economist is still occasionally apologizing for buying into the WMD narrative during the run up to the war in Iraq. The danger in "no one is credible" is that it elevates flat out propagandists to the same level as institutions that mostly get things right. It's sort of like science as a process: what we think we know now may need correcting in the future, but real scientists have a process that allows for (sometimes difficult) course correction.
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      If only American newspapers could get over their bothsideism, then they could report exclusively on the One True Side. Although that might be dangerous since journalists aren't experts in everything and so aren't qualified to choose sides (even if one side seems stupid to experts.)
      - davidw 7y ago
        There are plenty of examples where there is absolutely a side that is correct and one that is not. Do you think the earth is flat or that people who say so should be given equal time? There are plenty of other instances where one side is demonstrably correct.
        whatshisface 7y ago
        >There are plenty of other instances where one side is demonstrably correct. To who, an expert or a journalist? Flat Earthers can beat many people in arguments about the earth being flat, because general science knowledge is not very widespread. I could find plenty of journalists that don't know about, for example, the shadow length thing. The idea that newspapers should only quote truth-speakers does not address the reality of the limited knowledge of the journalists themselves. For them, flat earth theory is a choice between either ignoring everything but the mainstream consensus, or sometimes reporting on fringe groups. Clearly the second option is the right policy, especially because reporting on someone's claims does not imply that the newspaper thinks they are true. It may not be a fact that the earth is flat, but it is a fact that flat-earthers think the earth is flat. It may even be newsworthy.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - gumby 7y ago
    I think der Spiegel is still pretty reasonable, and die Zeit remains a weekly go-to for me. What shocks and saddens me is the complete decay of the French language news, quite sad for such an intensely literate culture.
- smt88 7y ago
  Genuinely curious what exactly you're referring to? I remember them publishing the Steele dossier, which had both truth and lies in it, but they added a strong caveat that they weren't able to verify the contents. How is that different from what WikiLeaks did (with regards to NSA spying and the Manning leaks) that HN praises them for?
  - Fellshard 7y ago
    Mostly recalling some of the claims and allegations they pushed during the Kavanaugh debacle, which were very quickly destroyed even by other publications carrying more serious allegations.
  - creaghpatr 7y ago
    Uh hello? https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/18/politics/mueller-statement-buzzfeed/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/18/politics/mueller-statement-bu... This is a titanic error, any new scoop from them must be verified from other sources now for them to be taken seriously.
    - dd36 7y ago
      How is that bad? Cohen claimed and still claims that. He even did so under oath. Something to the effect of, “he says it without saying it but I knew what he meant.” Not really any other reason for Cohen to lie to Congress than to help Trump.
      - creaghpatr 7y ago
        This was the highest-profile fuck up by a news organization in 2019. They didn't merely publish propaganda or disinformation: they published fraudulent news of the highest consequence, so bad that the Special Counsel had to issue an emergency statement to prevent all hell from breaking loose.
        nl 7y ago
        Buzzfeed later wrote an explanation of their reporting[1]. It's interesting - Buzzfeed's claim is: The facts of Cohen’s lies and his interactions with Trump are, largely, now settled. Our sources — federal law enforcement officials — interpreted the evidence Cohen presented as meaning that the president “directed” Cohen to lie. We now know that Mueller did not. The Mueller denial of the Buzzfeed reporting is very limited: "BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the Special Counsel's Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony are not accurate,” Robert Mueller’s spokesman, Peter Carr, said. This was prior the Mueller report being released. We now know Mueller report says: "While working on the congressional statement, Cohen had extensive discussions with the President's personal counsel, who, according to Cohen, said that Cohen should not contradict the President" and "Cohen also discussed pardons with the President?s personal counsel and believed that if he stayed on message, he would get a pardon or the President would do "something else" to make the investigation end.[2] The dispute seems mostly around the term "directed", and if it was directly by Trump or by his legal team. Both Mueller and Buzzfeed's sources agree that Trump and his legal team knew in advance that Cohen's congressional testimony contained lies. The Buzzfeed reporting was based on an official's notes that said “he was asked to lie by DJT/DJT Jr., lawyers.” Politfact agrees it is open to interpretation.[3] In any case, it seems calling it "fraudulent" is going too far. It seems like there is broad agreement that Trump didn't use the words "Please lie", but he did imply that is what he wanted and that Cohen would be rewarded if he did, and Trump's legal team approved the statements that they knew included lies. I'm going to do a HN taboo here and talk about voting. I realise this is an emotive subject and people have their predefined views. I'd ask people not to just vote on if they like Buzzfeed or not, and if they support Trump or not and instead consider if any of the things here have information they didn't know before. I believe that the answer to misinformation is information and I've tried to gather as much relevant information as possible here, and present both sides in as clear way as possible. [1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bensmith/how-we-characterized-michael-cohens-testimony https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bensmith/how-we-charact... [2] Muller Report, part 3, page 134 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-Report.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-... (Note that because of the weird pagination in this document you need to go to page 346 of this link to read part 3 page 134) [3] https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2019/feb/28/did-michael-cohens-testimony-back-buzzfeeds-beleag/ https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2019/feb/28/di...
- Fellshard 7y ago
  Always amusing to see the vote suddenly plummet in a vary narrow window of time. Don't let anyone tell you HN doesn't have Reddit-style vote brigading. People get angry when you touch their institutions.
  - mAEStro-paNDa 7y ago
    Buzzfeed has never really enjoyed a reputation of being a trusted news source[1], so this notion that anyone countering your outright dismissal of the publication is defending it is just silly. It's also just disproportionate considering outlets which are more widely trusted are given the benefit of the doubt despite egregious errors or lies. (such as NYTimes) [1] - https://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/appendix-c-trust-and-distrust-of-news-sources-by-ideological-group/ https://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/appendix-c-trust-and-d...
listenallyall 7y ago
Every time Buzzfeed is mentioned, someone brings up "but they have a real news division, it's different!". It's just another Buzzfeed strategy of manipulating opinion -- of Buzzfeed itself. "Ok, yea, we're mostly scum, but the other part is not. We promise!"
- layoutIfNeeded 7y ago
  This. Buzzfeed apologetics is so tiring.
- TheHypnotist 7y ago
  Yet there are still people that can't seem to separate the two.
  - blackearl 7y ago
    Maybe they should ditch the baggage and drop the Buzzfeed name then? I'm sure Theranos had an ace marketing department, but you wouldn't use them following the scandal.
    - LegitShady 7y ago
      The purpose is to muddy truth and inflame emotions for clicks. They prefer the now known name. They aren't in it for reputation - theirs is as garbage as their publication.
    - TheHypnotist 7y ago
      That probably would be wise. But how long until "But they're owned by BuzzFeed!"
- vkou 7y ago
  Your local town newspaper has the last eight to thirteen pages of it devoted to paid classifieds and syndicated cartoons, but I think that most readers are more than capable of separating the two. I certainly haven't seen too many people rant about how the local paper is awful, while citing those two sections as Exhibit A and Exhibit B. [1] For some reason, though, people seem utterly incapable of doing the same for Buzzfeed. [1] There are plenty of reasons for why a local town paper may only be good as toilet paper, but the presence of classifieds, obituaries, and Dilbert cartoons is rarely the cause of it - or even a correlating signal.

Fellshard 7y ago

And yet have been caught publishing some of the most overt lies of the last couple years, while buckling down on it. I keep seeing people try to defend them here, but they have already ruined any credibility they have both by their association and their behavior. It's not worth it; find a better institution to defend.

neuronic 7y ago
What organization is really even credible anymore? In Germany, I liked to read the SPIEGEL magazine (not Spiegel Online, that's half a step before boulevard) until the Claas Relotius case happened [1]. They tried to save face and apologized etc. etc. but who says that just fixes it? The Internet that has developed since the first ad-monetization almost demands, and at least incentivizes, shady behavior if you want to economically survive as an information processor - news outlet or others. Many of us on HN would gladly buy premium for something they enjoy but I fear the vast majority of people wants everything for "free". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claas_Relotius#Fabrication_of_stories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claas_Relotius#Fabrication_of_...
- Fellshard 7y ago
  Agreed. Plus, print is also harder to quietly modify; silent post-hoc 'corrections' to online articles that wildly change the article's conclusions are the norm, with no rigorous path to present those changes to those who consumed the article previously. A dedicated print subscription forces the printer to weigh the consequences of correcting an error more heavily, and a regular reader of a subscribed publication can be presented with corrected errors on the front page of each day's edition. (Not that any of this would happen in print, either; and not that this is impossible with internet media; but rather that the natural consequences of the print medium pushes heavily towards a different set of behaviours. I doubt anyone would subscribe to an RSS feed of errors.)
- davidw 7y ago
  > What organization is really even credible anymore Most of the major newspapers in the US are fairly credible, despite having issues like 'both-sidesism' and not doing well with asymmetry. 'Credible' doesn't mean "no mistakes". It means they own them and apologize for them. The Economist is still occasionally apologizing for buying into the WMD narrative during the run up to the war in Iraq. The danger in "no one is credible" is that it elevates flat out propagandists to the same level as institutions that mostly get things right. It's sort of like science as a process: what we think we know now may need correcting in the future, but real scientists have a process that allows for (sometimes difficult) course correction.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    If only American newspapers could get over their bothsideism, then they could report exclusively on the One True Side. Although that might be dangerous since journalists aren't experts in everything and so aren't qualified to choose sides (even if one side seems stupid to experts.)
    - davidw 7y ago
      There are plenty of examples where there is absolutely a side that is correct and one that is not. Do you think the earth is flat or that people who say so should be given equal time? There are plenty of other instances where one side is demonstrably correct.
      - whatshisface 7y ago
        >There are plenty of other instances where one side is demonstrably correct. To who, an expert or a journalist? Flat Earthers can beat many people in arguments about the earth being flat, because general science knowledge is not very widespread. I could find plenty of journalists that don't know about, for example, the shadow length thing. The idea that newspapers should only quote truth-speakers does not address the reality of the limited knowledge of the journalists themselves. For them, flat earth theory is a choice between either ignoring everything but the mainstream consensus, or sometimes reporting on fringe groups. Clearly the second option is the right policy, especially because reporting on someone's claims does not imply that the newspaper thinks they are true. It may not be a fact that the earth is flat, but it is a fact that flat-earthers think the earth is flat. It may even be newsworthy.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- gumby 7y ago
  I think der Spiegel is still pretty reasonable, and die Zeit remains a weekly go-to for me. What shocks and saddens me is the complete decay of the French language news, quite sad for such an intensely literate culture.
smt88 7y ago
Genuinely curious what exactly you're referring to? I remember them publishing the Steele dossier, which had both truth and lies in it, but they added a strong caveat that they weren't able to verify the contents. How is that different from what WikiLeaks did (with regards to NSA spying and the Manning leaks) that HN praises them for?
- Fellshard 7y ago
  Mostly recalling some of the claims and allegations they pushed during the Kavanaugh debacle, which were very quickly destroyed even by other publications carrying more serious allegations.
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  Uh hello? https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/18/politics/mueller-statement-buzzfeed/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/18/politics/mueller-statement-bu... This is a titanic error, any new scoop from them must be verified from other sources now for them to be taken seriously.
  - dd36 7y ago
    How is that bad? Cohen claimed and still claims that. He even did so under oath. Something to the effect of, “he says it without saying it but I knew what he meant.” Not really any other reason for Cohen to lie to Congress than to help Trump.
    - creaghpatr 7y ago
      This was the highest-profile fuck up by a news organization in 2019. They didn't merely publish propaganda or disinformation: they published fraudulent news of the highest consequence, so bad that the Special Counsel had to issue an emergency statement to prevent all hell from breaking loose.
      - nl 7y ago
        Buzzfeed later wrote an explanation of their reporting[1]. It's interesting - Buzzfeed's claim is: The facts of Cohen’s lies and his interactions with Trump are, largely, now settled. Our sources — federal law enforcement officials — interpreted the evidence Cohen presented as meaning that the president “directed” Cohen to lie. We now know that Mueller did not. The Mueller denial of the Buzzfeed reporting is very limited: "BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the Special Counsel's Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony are not accurate,” Robert Mueller’s spokesman, Peter Carr, said. This was prior the Mueller report being released. We now know Mueller report says: "While working on the congressional statement, Cohen had extensive discussions with the President's personal counsel, who, according to Cohen, said that Cohen should not contradict the President" and "Cohen also discussed pardons with the President?s personal counsel and believed that if he stayed on message, he would get a pardon or the President would do "something else" to make the investigation end.[2] The dispute seems mostly around the term "directed", and if it was directly by Trump or by his legal team. Both Mueller and Buzzfeed's sources agree that Trump and his legal team knew in advance that Cohen's congressional testimony contained lies. The Buzzfeed reporting was based on an official's notes that said “he was asked to lie by DJT/DJT Jr., lawyers.” Politfact agrees it is open to interpretation.[3] In any case, it seems calling it "fraudulent" is going too far. It seems like there is broad agreement that Trump didn't use the words "Please lie", but he did imply that is what he wanted and that Cohen would be rewarded if he did, and Trump's legal team approved the statements that they knew included lies. I'm going to do a HN taboo here and talk about voting. I realise this is an emotive subject and people have their predefined views. I'd ask people not to just vote on if they like Buzzfeed or not, and if they support Trump or not and instead consider if any of the things here have information they didn't know before. I believe that the answer to misinformation is information and I've tried to gather as much relevant information as possible here, and present both sides in as clear way as possible. [1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bensmith/how-we-characterized-michael-cohens-testimony https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bensmith/how-we-charact... [2] Muller Report, part 3, page 134 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-Report.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-... (Note that because of the weird pagination in this document you need to go to page 346 of this link to read part 3 page 134) [3] https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2019/feb/28/did-michael-cohens-testimony-back-buzzfeeds-beleag/ https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2019/feb/28/di...
Fellshard 7y ago
Always amusing to see the vote suddenly plummet in a vary narrow window of time. Don't let anyone tell you HN doesn't have Reddit-style vote brigading. People get angry when you touch their institutions.
- mAEStro-paNDa 7y ago
  Buzzfeed has never really enjoyed a reputation of being a trusted news source[1], so this notion that anyone countering your outright dismissal of the publication is defending it is just silly. It's also just disproportionate considering outlets which are more widely trusted are given the benefit of the doubt despite egregious errors or lies. (such as NYTimes) [1] - https://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/appendix-c-trust-and-distrust-of-news-sources-by-ideological-group/ https://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/appendix-c-trust-and-d...

listenallyall 7y ago

Every time Buzzfeed is mentioned, someone brings up "but they have a real news division, it's different!". It's just another Buzzfeed strategy of manipulating opinion -- of Buzzfeed itself. "Ok, yea, we're mostly scum, but the other part is not. We promise!"

layoutIfNeeded 7y ago
This. Buzzfeed apologetics is so tiring.
TheHypnotist 7y ago
Yet there are still people that can't seem to separate the two.
- blackearl 7y ago
  Maybe they should ditch the baggage and drop the Buzzfeed name then? I'm sure Theranos had an ace marketing department, but you wouldn't use them following the scandal.
  - LegitShady 7y ago
    The purpose is to muddy truth and inflame emotions for clicks. They prefer the now known name. They aren't in it for reputation - theirs is as garbage as their publication.
  - TheHypnotist 7y ago
    That probably would be wise. But how long until "But they're owned by BuzzFeed!"
vkou 7y ago
Your local town newspaper has the last eight to thirteen pages of it devoted to paid classifieds and syndicated cartoons, but I think that most readers are more than capable of separating the two. I certainly haven't seen too many people rant about how the local paper is awful, while citing those two sections as Exhibit A and Exhibit B. [1] For some reason, though, people seem utterly incapable of doing the same for Buzzfeed. [1] There are plenty of reasons for why a local town paper may only be good as toilet paper, but the presence of classifieds, obituaries, and Dilbert cartoons is rarely the cause of it - or even a correlating signal.