• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

BuzzFeed doesn't give an inch on its story.

Chomsky said:
Like I stated in my post, "that's the discrepancy".

(perhaps)
Click to expand...

So, to understand what you're saying . . .

They wrote a story, crediting documents held by the Special Counsel's office, supposedly stating information obtained from people in the Special Counsel's office, based on interviews given by people from the Trump campaign to the Special Counsel's office, all things which the reporters and BuzzFeed Ben have vociferously stood by, disputing the Special Counsel's statement that what they said is inaccurate . . .

. . . but you contend the sources may actually have been from the SDNY instead?
 
Harshaw said:
So, to understand what you're saying . . .

They wrote a story, crediting documents held by the Special Counsel's office, supposedly stating information obtained from people in the Special Counsel's office, based on interviews given by people from the Trump campaign to the Special Counsel's office, all things which the reporters and BuzzFeed Ben have vociferously stood by, disputing the Special Counsel's statement that what they said is inaccurate . . .

. . . but you contend the sources may actually have been from the SDNY instead?
Click to expand...
Yes. Possibly.

However if BF were to re-iterate that their sources are unequivocally SCO, then I might back-off. But right now, I have no idea what exactly is being disputed by Mueller.

I think it's possible the BF sources may be associated with SDNY.
 
Chomsky said:
Yes. Possibly.

However if BF were to re-iterate that their sources are unequivocally SCO, then I might back-off. But right now, I have no idea what exactly is being disputed by Mueller.

I think it's possible the BF sources may be associated with SDNY.
Click to expand...

That isn't what Buzzfeed reported:

Now the two sources have told BuzzFeed News that Cohen also told the special counsel that after the election, the president personally instructed him to lie — by claiming that negotiations ended months earlier than they actually did — in order to obscure Trump’s involvement

The special counsel’s office learned about Trump’s directive for Cohen to lie to Congress through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents. Cohen then acknowledged those instructions during his interviews with that office.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...ssia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation
Click to expand...
 
Chomsky said:
Yes. Possibly.

However if BF were to re-iterate that their sources are unequivocally SCO, then I might back-off. But right now, I have no idea what exactly is being disputed by Mueller.

I think it's possible the BF sources may be associated with SDNY.
Click to expand...

Well, given everything, I think that strains credulity by a country mile.

It certainly doesn't do anything for BuzzFeed's reputation if they reported that the sources were from the Special Counsel's office, insisted thereafter that it was all from the Special Counsel's office, despite what that office said, and lo and behold, it was from the SDNY all along. It suggests they do not know their asses from . . . everyone knows the rest.

They would also have to produce these documents and witnesses themselves, for everyone to see, in order for it to be believable.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
Well, given everything, I think that strains credulity by a country mile.

It certainly doesn't do anything for BuzzFeed's reputation if they reported that the sources were from the Special Counsel's office, insisted thereafter that it was all from the Special Counsel's office, despite what that office said, and lo and behold, it was from the SDNY all along. It suggests they do not know their asses from . . . everyone knows the rest.

They would also have to produce these documents and witnesses themselves, for everyone to see, in order for it to be believable.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't know what else to make of it. Buzzfeed seems to be doubling & tripling down, rechecking their sources. So I'm at a loss. The other scenario I can think of, is their sources are intentionally deceiving them. But they claim their sources are long established with them. There's one more possibility, and that's if the inaccuracy Mueller's office claims is only a small component of the story.

Other than those, I'm not sure what to say.
 
Chomsky said:
Well, I don't know what else to make of it. Buzzfeed seems to be doubling & tripling down, rechecking their sources. So I'm at a loss. The other scenario I can think of, is their sources are intentionally deceiving them. But they claim their sources are long established with them. There's one more possibility, and that's if the inaccuracy Mueller's office claims is only a small component of the story.

Other than those, I'm not sure what to say.
Click to expand...
Same here. Buzzfeed must now that doubling down like this if the sfory is truly wrong will be incredibly bad for them and will relegate their up and coming news reporting division to the trust worthiness of a second rate tabloid.

At the very least id find it absolutely amazing if we didnt find out they are 90% right.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
roughdraft274 said:
Same here. Buzzfeed must now that doubling down like this if the sfory is truly wrong will be incredibly bad for them and will relegate their up and coming news reporting division to the trust worthiness of a second rate tabloid.

At the very least id find it absolutely amazing if we didnt find out they are 90% right.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The BF editor claimed they re-checked with their sources, the sources re-verified, so they are sticking with their story.

Re-verified with their sources? That's not doubling down. That's like quintupling down!
 
Chomsky said:
The BF editor claimed they re-checked with their sources, the sources re-verified, so they are sticking with their story.

Re-verified with their sources? That's not doubling down. That's like quintupling down!
Click to expand...

Sounds to me that they have their cards and hoping to fill an inside straight on the river.
 
azgreg said:
Sounds to me that they have their cards and hoping to fill an inside straight on the river.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting point. Maybe.

But it's my understanding BF has not seen the documents alluded to. That leaves a lot that can go wrong.
 
Xelor said:
Red:


rotflmao.gif


​

We can stop now for with regard to my comments to which you've referred....



axJmn.gif
Click to expand...

So is Giuliani still Gospel for you here? Or is this irrelevant while his earlier statements hold?

https://twitter.com/johnrobertsFox/status/1087439976327974918

Dxdc5GQV4AAS6gz.jpg


Remember: I said what Giuliani says is irrelevant (I still say so). You laughed at that.
 
Xelor said:
I see also misconstrued this statement: "We can stop now for with regard to my comments to which you've referred....[the point went over your head]"
Click to expand...

That's not an answer, man. Is what Giuliani says relevant, or not? You found it laughable when I said it wasn't.
 
Xelor said:
I see also misconstrued this statement: "We can stop now for with regard to my comments to which you've referred....[the point went over your head]"

Harshaw said:
That's not an answer, man. Is what Giuliani says relevant, or not? You found it laughable when I said it wasn't.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Red:
You're right. It's not.
 
Chomsky said:
Well, I don't know what else to make of it. Buzzfeed seems to be doubling & tripling down, rechecking their sources. So I'm at a loss. The other scenario I can think of, is their sources are intentionally deceiving them. But they claim their sources are long established with them. There's one more possibility, and that's if the inaccuracy Mueller's office claims is only a small component of the story.
Other than those, I'm not sure what to say.
Click to expand...

Did you catch this one, that gives details about Buzzfeed and SC's response?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...5b-9fd3-72f0e911e28d_story.html?noredirect=on

According to this, Jason at Buzzfeed emailed Special Counsel about what they were going to run. But he apparently didn't include Special Counsel mentioned, and didn't include the core bit about Trump directing Cohen to lie.
SC replied "no comment". Jason took this to mean he's in the clear.
Jason sent it to the WH counsel, and they said it's wrong, you need to check your facts more. Jason felt as though WH was the enemy and shouldn't be trusted.
Peter Carr (SC) says he would have strongly opposed the release to Jason, if Jason had included what he actually ended up publishing.
As it was, Peter Carr sent Jason the transcript from Cohen (before publication of Jason's piece), hinting by showing Jason nowhere in there did Cohen claim he lied based on Trump directing him. Jason didn't take the hint either.
Special Counsel after the story broke, sought out the "two federal law enforcement matters" or any testimony/documentation referenced by Buzzfeed's article. They found none.

To me it looks like Jason was sloppy based on that.
It also looks like SC has a good story as to how Buzzfeed got it wrong, and only if they had it so wrong did they feel compelled to shoot it down.

Sure it's possible that SC is trying to keep it on the down-lo so they can spring this when it's time. Maybe we'll know more after Cohen's testimony. If under oath, he again says that Trump did NOT direct him (as he's already said publicly after his false statements arraignment) , then I don't see how it could be the case.

If he says he can't answer that, then it will be intriguing.

No one else has been able to corroborate Buzzfeed. A few other sources (Farrow) have said their own sources tell them Buzzfeed's not accurate in this case.
 
Mach said:
Did you catch this one, that gives details about Buzzfeed and SC's response?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...5b-9fd3-72f0e911e28d_story.html?noredirect=on

According to this, Jason at Buzzfeed emailed Special Counsel about what they were going to run. But he apparently didn't include Special Counsel mentioned, and didn't include the core bit about Trump directing Cohen to lie.
SC replied "no comment". Jason took this to mean he's in the clear.
Jason sent it to the WH counsel, and they said it's wrong, you need to check your facts more. Jason felt as though WH was the enemy and shouldn't be trusted.
Peter Carr (SC) says he would have strongly opposed the release to Jason, if Jason had included what he actually ended up publishing.
As it was, Peter Carr sent Jason the transcript from Cohen (before publication of Jason's piece), hinting by showing Jason nowhere in there did Cohen claim he lied based on Trump directing him. Jason didn't take the hint either.
Special Counsel after the story broke, sought out the "two federal law enforcement matters" or any testimony/documentation referenced by Buzzfeed's article. They found none.

To me it looks like Jason was sloppy based on that.
It also looks like SC has a good story as to how Buzzfeed got it wrong, and only if they had it so wrong did they feel compelled to shoot it down.

Sure it's possible that SC is trying to keep it on the down-lo so they can spring this when it's time. Maybe we'll know more after Cohen's testimony. If under oath, he again says that Trump did NOT direct him (as he's already said publicly after his false statements arraignment) , then I don't see how it could be the case.

If he says he can't answer that, then it will be intriguing.

No one else has been able to corroborate Buzzfeed. A few other sources (Farrow) have said their own sources tell them Buzzfeed's not accurate in this case.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's fair. This is coming-off in the same manner as the McClatchy "Cohen in Prague" story. Yet both orgs steadfastly remain resolute in defense of their stories.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
That is not journalism, that is gossip.
Click to expand...

You’re wrong. Reporters will refer to other stories and sometimes say they can’t be corroborated. That’s part of reporting all the facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Why present an unsubstantiated rumor as "news" at all? The intent was obviously to emphatically and breathlessly state that Trump is toast for sure if true evidence of documented perjury orders were issued by the POTUS.
Click to expand...

Depends on the rumor and the source. Not all rumors are worthy of being reported. Some more, some aren’t. Depends on who the source is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
madasheck said:
Depends on the rumor and the source. Not all rumors are worthy of being reported. Some more, some aren’t. Depends on who the source is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

In this case the sources were not named and the documents which allegedly back those sources up were not seen. That the public is supposed to accept such second hand (at least) statements as "factual news" is simply ridiculous. This is no more than stating that very trustworthy sources have assured us that they have physical evidence of a bigfoot sighting or alien abduction.
 
Harshaw said:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/buzzfeed-responds-to-mueller-statement-we-stand-by-our-reporting

Their line:



Apparently this is the hill they want to die on, and in so doing, they are necessarily saying that it's the Mueller camp which is wrong about the evidence in the Mueller investigation. This isn't "yeah, but they didn't categorically deny it, so some of it may still be true." This is BuzzFeed saying in no uncertain terms that everything in their story is true, despite the statement from the Special Counsel's office.

As I've said in other threads, the credibility of BuzzFeed is surely on the line here, but so is the credibility of the rest of the news media. If they circle the wagons around BuzzFeed, and it sure looks like that's what they're inclined to do, then they deserve all the shots of "fake news!" aimed at them.

Unless, of course, BuzzFeed is right and it's the Special Counsel's office which is lying.

Which do you find more likely?
Click to expand...

Until just a few months ago Buzzfeed was nothing but a click-bait site full of surveys, polls, videos and kitty pictures. If you download the app it's rated for "kids." How do they now have credibility in the politics arena?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
In this case the sources were not named and the documents which allegedly back those sources up were not seen. That the public is supposed to accept such second hand (at least) statements as "factual news" is simply ridiculous. This is no more than stating that very trustworthy sources have assured us that they have physical evidence of a bigfoot sighting or alien abduction.
Click to expand...

The fact the sources were named doesn’t mean Buzzfeed didn’t know who they were. The reason they weren’t named is because there were good reasons why they shouldn’t of been identified. Buzzfeed didn’t do anything wrong in that regard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom