6 ms·

I really don't know why they kept the BuzzFeed branding. I intentionally _ignored_ anything that came from BuzzFeed News as likely tabloid-esque news because of

by ar_lan 3y ago

I really don't know why they kept the BuzzFeed branding. I intentionally _ignored_ anything that came from BuzzFeed News as likely tabloid-esque news because of the branding, and I honestly do not think that's the wrong perspective to take. We have to filter out noise in some ways, and BuzzFeed has made no considerable effort to position themselves as a platform worth listening to.

gspencley 3y ago
I agree with you and take it one leg further: I didn't even know there was a difference between "BuzzFeed News" and the rest of Buzzfeed. As in, my first reaction to the article was "What else do they do?" I thought Buzzfeed was online "tabloid journalism" like The National Inquirer.
- Lazare 3y ago
  No, hilariously Buzzfeed News was top tier investigative journalism, and at their best was as good as anything done by NYT or WaPo. The business model seemed to be "what if we have truly great investigative journalism, funded by clickbait listicales that we, inexplicablly, use the same brand for". It's easy to mock the branding decisions they made (and not entirely unfair) but it's still a loss to the internet to see them go.
- reportgunner 3y ago
  I too did not know Buzzfeed news is not Buzzfeed, but I would even go as far as to doubt that it really is different than Buzzfeed.
- portmanteur 3y ago
  Buzzfeed News _was_ tabloid journalism. They published demonstrably fake news, most notably the infamous Steele Dossier. Buzzfeed News claimed the document was "unverified," when in reality it was verifiably false. Every other major media outlet had access to this document and refused to publish it because its claims were unsubstantiated. But not Buzzfeed News -- skepticism of this outlet's seriousness was completely warranted.
  - JakeAl 3y ago
    AND they knew the dossier contained bad info by their own admission but published it anyway.
daveslash 3y ago
I agree with you. I'm aware that they have very serious, legitimate, award winning news coverage, and I applaud them for that - but if Hustler Magazine released a Hustler Weekly News magazine, I would not fault people for shrugging it off. Listicle BuzzFeed did such a good job at lodging itself in our awareness it colored the brand in one shade.
nostromo 3y ago
Because the whole point was to improve the BuzzFeed brand.
- pinebox 3y ago
  Sort of like moving your smelly dumpster in front of your classy restaurant to increase the dumpster's reputation.
  - RajT88 3y ago
    This is a good metaphor, so let's run with it. It would certainly improve your reputation among raccoons.
    - red-iron-pine 3y ago
      What are the raccoons in this metaphor? presumably the idiot demographic
      - RajT88 3y ago
        Yeah, something like that. Idiots, trolls, etc.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
    And now, the restaurant is on fire, while the dumpster is fine...
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Which is what makes it a stupid idea. Credibility is hard to get, easy to lose. It seems obvious that the poor reputation of Buzzfeed would bring the news part down rather than the news bringing the rest of the operation up.
jollofricepeas 3y ago
Thanks for this. Buzzfeed News was amazing real journalism at its finest. It’s demise goes to show that humans do not want fact-finding journalism. Even highly paid humans like HN developers refuse to pay for journalism so… …what we’re left with is entertainment such as Fox News and the others.
- misnome 3y ago
  > It’s demise goes to show that humans do not want fact-finding journalism. Isn't it a more accurate description to say that this goes to show that if you dilute your fact-finding journalism brand with clickbait nonsense, then people will ignore all of it?
- briandear 3y ago
  “At its finest?” The Steele Dossier was “good” journalism? It was partisan hackery. https://www.thewrap.com/buzzfeed-finally-updates-story-that-claimed-trump-directed-michael-cohen-to-lie-to-congress/amp/ https://www.thewrap.com/buzzfeed-finally-updates-story-that-...
  - throwaway202303 3y ago
    They mean main stream media voice of the elite reporting at its finest
    - JakeAl 3y ago
      I think you mean Elitists, not Elite.
  - jakelazaroff 3y ago
    Curious what news organization you can think of that doesn't have a single miss. Bloomberg had "The Big Hack", the New York Post had the Hunter Biden emails, the New York Times basically invented a crime wave, etc.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
misiti3780 3y ago
Not trying to make this political, but BuzzFeed news was the first outlet to publish the Steele dossier, we know that didnt end well. Then the editor and Chief and the time left, for the NYT, wound up founding Semafor, took some money from SBF and failed to disclose it. More here: https://www.axios.com/2021/11/14/steele-dossier-discredited-media-corrections-buzzfeed-washington-post https://www.axios.com/2021/11/14/steele-dossier-discredited-...
- calgarymicro 3y ago
  From the day they published it, they included a disclaimer that the dossier contained > specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations And that > The allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors. I don't really hold it against them that they published a document they had been given with a big disclaimer on it. As far as Semafor is concerned, I'm pretty sure SBF's investment was public record. Where did they fail to disclose it?
  - misiti3780 3y ago
    I believe what happened was they reported the SBF put 100+M in the twitter acquisition, Musk called them out on lying, and on not disclosing that SBF was an investor: https://www.semafor.com/article/11/22/2022/sam-bankman-fried-elon-and-a-secret-text https://www.semafor.com/article/11/22/2022/sam-bankman-fried... In the end, Im pretty sure Elon was correct and Semafor did in fact misreport this, SBF didnt invest anything in the acquisition.
wmeredith 3y ago
It was a colossal blunder to keep the Buzzfeed branding. Every time I saw one of Buzzfeed News' excellent investigative journalism projects published or talked about online, the conversation about them vs. Buzzfeed was the dominant one. This thread is no different.
- AlwaysRock 3y ago
  It was an effort to build credibility for Buzzfeed as a whole, right? A mistake in retrospect but not an entirely stupid idea.
  - brucethemoose2 3y ago
    Yeah, news organizations weren't in such a fight for there lives when that idea/branding was conceived. But they really should have renamed it. Would that be so hard?
  - junon 3y ago
    Buzzfeed (listicle, not News) used to be a bit more entertaining back when it started but quickly devolved to what it is now, to be fair.
- hackmiester 3y ago
  I literally ignored all BuzzFeed content so completely that I have never seen that conversation happen ever before. I only clicked this because it was about it shutting down.
  - Yhippa 3y ago
    This is strangely the only website that I’ve had to completely turn off in all of my news feeds. Credit to the tech companies, because it worked. Haven’t seen a BuzzFeed listicle in almost a decade.
- trollied 3y ago
  Seems like a huge leadership blunder. They didn't even know how their own audience would react to a serious news organisation being part of their existing brand. Some simple user research would have highlighted this before the venture even started.
JohnFen 3y ago
I always ignored Buzzfeed news as well, for the same reason. I had no idea that they weren't the same "quality" as Buzzfeed.
Fricken 3y ago
I only link to buzzfeed through sites like HN so all I see is Buzzfeed's better half.
Fricken 3y ago
I only visit Buzzfeed through sites like HN so all I see is their better half.
omaranto 3y ago
> BuzzFeed has made no considerable effort to position themselves as a platform worth listening to. Well, they did win a Pulitzer. That sounds like it would position them as a platform worth listening to and also like something that took some considerable effort.

by ar_lan 3y ago

gspencley 3y ago

I agree with you and take it one leg further: I didn't even know there was a difference between "BuzzFeed News" and the rest of Buzzfeed. As in, my first reaction to the article was "What else do they do?" I thought Buzzfeed was online "tabloid journalism" like The National Inquirer.

Lazare 3y ago
No, hilariously Buzzfeed News was top tier investigative journalism, and at their best was as good as anything done by NYT or WaPo. The business model seemed to be "what if we have truly great investigative journalism, funded by clickbait listicales that we, inexplicablly, use the same brand for". It's easy to mock the branding decisions they made (and not entirely unfair) but it's still a loss to the internet to see them go.
reportgunner 3y ago
I too did not know Buzzfeed news is not Buzzfeed, but I would even go as far as to doubt that it really is different than Buzzfeed.
portmanteur 3y ago
Buzzfeed News _was_ tabloid journalism. They published demonstrably fake news, most notably the infamous Steele Dossier. Buzzfeed News claimed the document was "unverified," when in reality it was verifiably false. Every other major media outlet had access to this document and refused to publish it because its claims were unsubstantiated. But not Buzzfeed News -- skepticism of this outlet's seriousness was completely warranted.
- JakeAl 3y ago
  AND they knew the dossier contained bad info by their own admission but published it anyway.

daveslash 3y ago

I agree with you. I'm aware that they have very serious, legitimate, award winning news coverage, and I applaud them for that - but if Hustler Magazine released a Hustler Weekly News magazine, I would not fault people for shrugging it off. Listicle BuzzFeed did such a good job at lodging itself in our awareness it colored the brand in one shade.

nostromo 3y ago

Because the whole point was to improve the BuzzFeed brand.

pinebox 3y ago
Sort of like moving your smelly dumpster in front of your classy restaurant to increase the dumpster's reputation.
- RajT88 3y ago
  This is a good metaphor, so let's run with it. It would certainly improve your reputation among raccoons.
  - red-iron-pine 3y ago
    What are the raccoons in this metaphor? presumably the idiot demographic
    - RajT88 3y ago
      Yeah, something like that. Idiots, trolls, etc.
- ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
  And now, the restaurant is on fire, while the dumpster is fine...
JohnFen 3y ago
Which is what makes it a stupid idea. Credibility is hard to get, easy to lose. It seems obvious that the poor reputation of Buzzfeed would bring the news part down rather than the news bringing the rest of the operation up.

jollofricepeas 3y ago

Thanks for this. Buzzfeed News was amazing real journalism at its finest. It’s demise goes to show that humans do not want fact-finding journalism. Even highly paid humans like HN developers refuse to pay for journalism so… …what we’re left with is entertainment such as Fox News and the others.

misnome 3y ago
> It’s demise goes to show that humans do not want fact-finding journalism. Isn't it a more accurate description to say that this goes to show that if you dilute your fact-finding journalism brand with clickbait nonsense, then people will ignore all of it?
briandear 3y ago
“At its finest?” The Steele Dossier was “good” journalism? It was partisan hackery. https://www.thewrap.com/buzzfeed-finally-updates-story-that-claimed-trump-directed-michael-cohen-to-lie-to-congress/amp/ https://www.thewrap.com/buzzfeed-finally-updates-story-that-...
- throwaway202303 3y ago
  They mean main stream media voice of the elite reporting at its finest
  - JakeAl 3y ago
    I think you mean Elitists, not Elite.
- jakelazaroff 3y ago
  Curious what news organization you can think of that doesn't have a single miss. Bloomberg had "The Big Hack", the New York Post had the Hunter Biden emails, the New York Times basically invented a crime wave, etc.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

misiti3780 3y ago

Not trying to make this political, but BuzzFeed news was the first outlet to publish the Steele dossier, we know that didnt end well. Then the editor and Chief and the time left, for the NYT, wound up founding Semafor, took some money from SBF and failed to disclose it. More here: https://www.axios.com/2021/11/14/steele-dossier-discredited-media-corrections-buzzfeed-washington-post https://www.axios.com/2021/11/14/steele-dossier-discredited-...

calgarymicro 3y ago
From the day they published it, they included a disclaimer that the dossier contained > specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations And that > The allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors. I don't really hold it against them that they published a document they had been given with a big disclaimer on it. As far as Semafor is concerned, I'm pretty sure SBF's investment was public record. Where did they fail to disclose it?
- misiti3780 3y ago
  I believe what happened was they reported the SBF put 100+M in the twitter acquisition, Musk called them out on lying, and on not disclosing that SBF was an investor: https://www.semafor.com/article/11/22/2022/sam-bankman-fried-elon-and-a-secret-text https://www.semafor.com/article/11/22/2022/sam-bankman-fried... In the end, Im pretty sure Elon was correct and Semafor did in fact misreport this, SBF didnt invest anything in the acquisition.

wmeredith 3y ago

It was a colossal blunder to keep the Buzzfeed branding. Every time I saw one of Buzzfeed News' excellent investigative journalism projects published or talked about online, the conversation about them vs. Buzzfeed was the dominant one. This thread is no different.

AlwaysRock 3y ago
It was an effort to build credibility for Buzzfeed as a whole, right? A mistake in retrospect but not an entirely stupid idea.
- brucethemoose2 3y ago
  Yeah, news organizations weren't in such a fight for there lives when that idea/branding was conceived. But they really should have renamed it. Would that be so hard?
- junon 3y ago
  Buzzfeed (listicle, not News) used to be a bit more entertaining back when it started but quickly devolved to what it is now, to be fair.
hackmiester 3y ago
I literally ignored all BuzzFeed content so completely that I have never seen that conversation happen ever before. I only clicked this because it was about it shutting down.
- Yhippa 3y ago
  This is strangely the only website that I’ve had to completely turn off in all of my news feeds. Credit to the tech companies, because it worked. Haven’t seen a BuzzFeed listicle in almost a decade.
trollied 3y ago
Seems like a huge leadership blunder. They didn't even know how their own audience would react to a serious news organisation being part of their existing brand. Some simple user research would have highlighted this before the venture even started.

JohnFen 3y ago

I always ignored Buzzfeed news as well, for the same reason. I had no idea that they weren't the same "quality" as Buzzfeed.

Fricken 3y ago

I only link to buzzfeed through sites like HN so all I see is Buzzfeed's better half.

Fricken 3y ago

I only visit Buzzfeed through sites like HN so all I see is their better half.

omaranto 3y ago

> BuzzFeed has made no considerable effort to position themselves as a platform worth listening to. Well, they did win a Pulitzer. That sounds like it would position them as a platform worth listening to and also like something that took some considerable effort.