Posting it with some false statement about it being the clear truth or whatever would be bad, but it's sort of hilarious to point to the NYT being chickenshit about it as some sort of evidence that Buzzfeed went off the rails by posting it.
No, 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.”
Which is a long, long way from "false".
No it isn't.
> "BuzzFeed’s description... are not accurate"
That is literally saying that their reports were false.
Then why didn't he say "false"? Why did he choose the specific "not accurate"?
What of the thousands whose lives are destroyed by shoddy journalism who aren't famous enough to even be recalled? I sincerely hope all of these yellow journalism outfits go out of business. It won't happen, but one can hope.
You can hate the guy--it is establishment policy to do so, after all--but he's a tough son-of-a-bitch. There's no way around that fact.
I'm curious what 'establishment' means to you and which part of the 'establishment' and the 'right' you think are still against him. He and the republicans have literally been in control of the entire federal government for 2 years up until a couple of weeks ago and it seems that the republicans are completely behind him.
The only reason he has lasted all this time is because he's wealthy, and that's mostly because he inherited a couple of hundred million dollars from his father.
https://www.thoughtco.com/donald-trump-business-bankruptcies...
Regardless of how you feel about him, attaining this office does mean a certain amount of competence.
That depends - how much external help am I allowed?
It's obvious from your other comments that you viscerally hate this man, it might good for you to see things with a bit more objectivity.
I mean, I'm sure they do also sometimes produce journalistic content, and it might be of great quality when they do.
Buzzfeed News current top articles:
Why Bryan Singer’s Latest Scandal May Not Affect Rami Malek’s “Bohemian Rhapsody” Oscar Campaign
This Photographer Captures The Emotional Final Moments Between Pets And Their Owners
Climate Change Is A Top Priority For The New Crop Of Governors — Even One Republican
A Man Allegedly Harassed Parkland Victims' Families On Instagram By Posing As The Shooter
A Woman Mistakenly Showed Up For Her Interview With Microsoft A Month Early. Her Hilarious Exchange With The Company Has Gone Viral.
Here are some examples from buzzfeed news:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/poison-in-the-system
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nicolenguyen/how-apps-t...
I think Buzzfeed news should rebrand itself so people stop getting the two confused
The SCO's statement was _much_ narrower in scope than that.
Calling it the 'uncorroborated Steele dossier' is a talking point that has been proven to be a lie over and over. It seems that Buzzfeed New's publishing about the dossier is literally the type of 'real journalism' and 'legitimate news' that you're talking about because it has led to multiple investigations of some of the most influential people in the United States and has led to multiple indictments and guilty pleas, including the former National Security Advisor to the President of the United States. I haven't seen many '10 surprise diet secrets' articles doing the same. Have you?
Have any of the guilty pleas corresponded to a specific claim from Steele? My understanding is, few if any. For what remains of "almost entirely" the whole dossier, "corroborated" in your book seems to mean "not worth bringing before a court of law, even after 2+ years of highly empowered investigation".
> No parts of it have been proven incorrect so far. Do you have any evidence that any parts of it have been shot down as not factual?
Russell has got an orbiting teacup to sell you.
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/12/an-updated-lo...
What source are you using to get "almost entirely corroborated"?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/20/business/media/buzzfeed-t...
As far as “tough day on the industry,” perhaps if the industry gave themselves a strong look in the mirror, they’d figure out why. The NY Times is doing pretty well, as is Reuters. It seems that perhaps the youngsters these days are interested more than listicles and might actually care about legitimate news?