John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

I think this subject was on this forum but I can't find it. I suspect what Media Bias Chart opinion might interest our readers, so here is the article.

"The big BuzzFeed News story and how it impacts its ranking on the Media Bias Chart

BuzzFeed News just came out with a big story entitled “President Trump Directed His Attorney Michael Cohen to Lie to Congress About the Moscow Project,” which has been disputed by the Special Counsel’s office. Whenever a single major news org reports a big, exclusive, consequential story, which is not shortly verified by other major outlets, it is best to reserve judgment on its veracity for about a week. Other news outlets (i.e., BuzzFeed’s competitors and colleagues) are doing the work to find out exactly what happened. This is the great thing about the media ecosystem—everything is instantly peer reviewed. This allows you to trust that a combination of reputable sources will get to the t***h even if one is wrong. Given that all humans and therefore all outlets get things wrong, the question isn’t “can I trust this news source to give me the t***h 100% of the time?” The answer has to be no, for every source. The question for savvy news consumers should be “can I trust these combinations of news sources to give me the best information available to journalists at this time?” If you select the right combination, the answer is yes.

For this BuzzFeed News story, it’s important to figure out if and how the story may be wrong; it makes a difference whether reporters were misled, or if they made a mistake, or if the writers were being deceptive, or if they ignored journalistic standards, or if they were ultimately right. The last option (whether they were right) will likely take a long time to be determined. For the purposes of the chart, though, we will typically wait a week for the journalism community to figure out what happened before ranking that article. If it is a very bad ranking, it will weight the moving overall source ranking for a while (e.g., three months), but that can recover over time. How an organization deals with a mistake or journalistic breach matters in its long-term ranking. Of course, these movements will only be visible when we release the interactive version of the chart and are not visible now.

Another note on BuzzFeed News—we rank the site http://www.buzzfeednews.com, which reflects the news division of the company, and not https://www.buzzfeed.com/, which has entertainment content like animal videos and quizzes."

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

There is clearly more here than is apparent on the surface.
At this time Buzzfeed stands by the story.
Time will tell.

EyeSawYou

Where is your evidence that there is "clearly more here than is apparent on the surface"? Or are you a contributor for Buzzfeed? lol

jcboy3

Because Mueller's office provided a not very specific statement that the article was "inaccurate". Which could run the gamut from minor mistake to complete fabrication. But the news here is that Mueller's office responded to this one article, and none of the other stuff that's been flying around the news cycle.

Enquiring minds want to know, why this report, why now?

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

The Special Prosecutor office's statement can be read in two ways. The key words were "not accurate." Does this 'not' refer to the content of the article OR to the source of the information. Those are two different things.

EyeSawYou

That doesn't answer my question, the question was also NOT posed to you either.

EyeSawYou

Please stop with the BS stories without evidence to back them up, people are really getting tired of your progressive conspiracy BS. Let Mueller finish his investigation without all the peripheral BS side shows.


"...special counsel’s spokesman, Peter Carr, said, “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.”

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

It's a reasonable assumption, and if he's wrong it isn't as though he's taking some action or is even in a position to take some action that is harmful. Why do you always have to be a jerk. I'm sorry I don't feel free to use stronger language. You don't have a right to expect accuracy and precision from others that you never even attempt.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

You express opinions all the time without first giving formal notice that it is only an opinion. Why do you feel that anyone who disagrees with you shouldn't be allowed to do the same. There are times when an opinion should be prefaced with "this is my opinion" but an awful lot of the time it's obvious that something is an opinion. Does anyone even allow you to talk to them in real life?

EyeSawYou

Has nothing to with disagreeing with me you illiterate, its about t***h NOT your alternative t***h.

jcboy3

Oh yes, it most certainly did.

And if you want a private conversation, you know what to do.

EyeSawYou

Wrong again, it does in no way answer my question.

jcboy3

You are under the impression you asked something different. That is too bad.

I answered the question. You can’t undo it just because you don’t like the answer

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

You have no idea of my literacy level. So how can you be being t***hful when you call me (and everyone else who dares to post anything you don’t like) illiterate? I’ve been called way to many times for being insulting over posts much less agressive than yours tend to be, to be willing to put up with much more of it.

jcboy3

Seems like they suddenly learned a new word. But haven’t figured out when to use it.

The right wing insults do no justice to their cause, wh**ever it turns out to be.