BuzzFeed doesn't give an inch on its story.

[Hawkeye10]

Since I only watched CNN during that time, I can guarantee that every time they referred to the Buzzfeed story, they restated "CNN cannot independently confirm Buzzfeed's claim". I heard today on another station that three major media outlets had been unable to confirm Buzzfeed's article, and couched their reporting of the story attributing it only to Buzzfeed and stating "If true..." during their discussions.

That is not journalism, that is gossip.

 

[Chomsky]

The "if true" BuzzFeed yarn about hard evidence of Trump commanding perjury was being aired on many MSM outlets along with all manner of dire predictions for Trump et al. Putting so much faith in two alleged to be trustworthy anonymous sources about documentation never seen by the BuzzFeed staff is quite a stretch.

I heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend who, heard it from another that...

Casually watching yesterday, I saw no outlets that did not use a term like "we have not verified", "not confirmed", or something similar. And in commentary discussion, they all predicated their discussion with "if". So I don't see the problem, here. It was a legit story to cover.

 

[Acadia]

You knew this was the way it's gonna' go though...right? :lol:
Now we know for sure where the left gets their talking points. :lamo

 

[ttwtt78640]

Since I only watched CNN during that time, I can guarantee that every time they referred to the Buzzfeed story, they restated "CNN cannot independently confirm Buzzfeed's claim". I heard today on another station that three major media outlets had been unable to confirm Buzzfeed's article, and couched their reporting of the story attributing it only to Buzzfeed and stating "If true..." during their discussions.

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.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Casually watching yesterday, I saw no outlets that did not use a term like "we have not verified", "not confirmed", or something similar. And in commentary discussion, they all predicated their discussion with "if". So I don't see the problem, here. It was a legit story to cover.

What, exactly, was "legit" about it? It differed from a second hand (at least) bigfoot sighting only in that the alleged sighting was said to be (if true) hard evidence linking Trump to perjury by Cohen.

 

[Acadia]

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.

They've learned nothing from the James Rosen debacle.

 

[noonereal]

I'm at a loss to see how this is a substantive reflection on the rest of media, accept for those already having an ax to grind.

it's not

 

[azgreg]

Since I only watched CNN during that time, I can guarantee that every time they referred to the Buzzfeed story, they restated "CNN cannot independently confirm Buzzfeed's claim". I heard today on another station that three major media outlets had been unable to confirm Buzzfeed's article, and couched their reporting of the story attributing it only to Buzzfeed and stating "If true..." during their discussions.

Why are you responding to Hawkeye? He has less credibility than BuzzFeed.

 

[Chomsky]

What, exactly, was "legit" about it? It differed from a second hand (at least) bigfoot sighting only in that the alleged sighting was said to be (if true) hard evidence linking Trump to perjury by Cohen.

It was a pertinent story. (Trump + Cohen + Obstruction)

It got reported by the media as unconfirmed (rightfully so). And they were right. Mueller disputed it's "accuracy", whatever that means. But it was still worth covering.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It was a pertinent story. (Trump + Cohen + Obstruction)

It got reported by the media as unconfirmed (rightfully so). And they were right. Mueller disputed it's "accuracy", whatever that means. But it was still worth covering.

It was totally unsourced and lasted about a day before OSC folks shot it down as being "inaccurate". Like I said, it was about as compelling as a an unsourced bigfoot sighting (with physical evidence rumored to exist) but it did conform to the Trump bashing theme.

 

[Harshaw]

I'm at a loss to see how this is a substantive reflection on the rest of media, accept for those already having an ax to grind.

So if Buzzfeed gets something wrong, the rest of the news media has no credibility? That's absurd.
What evidence do you have to back your claim that MSM is inclined to "circle the wagons" around Buzzfeed?

I have seen all major news media NOT corroborate Buzzfeed, and even some reporting (Farrow) outright saying their own sources do not agree with Buzzfeed. I would be very interested to know what MSM organization has backed Buzzfeed with their own reporting/sourcing...that would be a big story.

Um, if the NYT and the Washington Post do their own investigative reporting that indicates Buzzfeed is wrong, how the **** are they culpable for Buzzfeed's mistakes?

It's like you guys purposely didn't read what I actually wrote. I made no such blanket statement that BuzzFeed's misdeeds in and of themselves tarnish all of the media. I stated conditions under which it would, with an "if."

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.

Well, Mach apparently did, because he repeated some of it, yet he still asked:

So if Buzzfeed gets something wrong, the rest of the news media has no credibility?

Which makes it worse, because he did see the condition under which I was saying what I said, but didn't care.

As others have pointed out, just about every other news outlet ran with the story even though they said they couldn't confirm it. That's not what a responsible journalistic outfit does. That's what people on Facebook do.

You don't treat something like news if you can't confirm it yourself. They pretty much all did. So, it's egg that's on their faces, too.

Now, after the statement from the Mueller camp, is the reaction from the rest of the news media anything approaching "how did this happen and how can we be sure it doesn't happen again"? No. They all ran with "oh GOD now Trump is going to blame us all!"

Is there any inclination at all to take BuzzFeed to the woodshed for this? Is there any mea culpa for running with the story themselves?

Not that I've seen.

They can still do so. If they play CYA, or if they give BuzzFeed cover, as CNN looks likely to do on Stetler's show tomorrow, or simply try to sweep it all under the rug, then yeah, it tarnishes them, too.

 

[madasheck]

I'm at a loss to see how this is a substantive reflection on the rest of media, accept for those already having an ax to grind.

Right. Trump, Hannity and all the other Trump fools know nothing about journalism anyway. And all the ignorant Trumpoids will just believe anything.

 

[Chomsky]

It's like you guys purposely didn't read what I actually wrote. I made no such blanket statement that BuzzFeed's misdeeds in and of themselves tarnish all of the media. I stated conditions under which it would, with an "if."



Well, Mach apparently did, because he repeated some of it, yet he still asked:



Which makes it worse, because he did see the condition under which I was saying what I said, but didn't care.

As others have pointed out, just about every other news outlet ran with the story even though they said they couldn't confirm it. That's not what a responsible journalistic outfit does. That's what people on Facebook do.

You don't treat something like news if you can't confirm it yourself. They pretty much all did. So, it's egg that's on their faces, too.

Now, after the statement from the Mueller camp, is the reaction from the rest of the news media anything approaching "how did this happen and how can we be sure it doesn't happen again"? No. They all ran with "oh GOD now Trump is going to blame us all!"

Is there any inclination at all to take BuzzFeed to the woodshed for this? Is there any mea culpa for running with the story themselves?

Not that I've seen.

They can still do so. If they play CYA, or if they give BuzzFeed cover, as CNN looks likely to do on Stetler's show tomorrow, or simply try to sweep it all under the rug, then yeah, it tarnishes them, too.

Alright Harshaw, fair enough.

But it's interesting your argument was predicated upon an "if" predicate statement. Which is exactly how the media presented the Buzzfeed article you malign: "If"

 

[Rexedgar]

Alright Harshaw, fair enough.

But it's interesting your argument was predicated upon an "if" predicate statement. Which is exactly how the media presented the Buzzfeed article you malign: "If"

Change the “s’ for an “f?”

 

[Harshaw]

Alright Harshaw, fair enough.

But it's interesting your argument was predicated upon an "if" predicate statement. Which is exactly how the media presented the Buzzfeed article you malign: "If"

What is the problem with my "if"?

 

[Fletch]

The "if true" BuzzFeed yarn about hard evidence of Trump commanding perjury was being aired on many MSM outlets along with all manner of dire predictions for Trump et al. Putting so much faith in two alleged to be trustworthy anonymous sources about documentation never seen by the BuzzFeed staff is quite a stretch.

I heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend who, heard it from another that...

One of my all time favorite tunes there. Good of you to work that into a post!

 

[Fletch]

Yeah, the statement was legalistic and obtuse. It solved little, but did exemplify the immense gravitas Mueller carries.

How was the statement 'obtuse?' To me, it couldnt be more clear. Mueller, who never comments on anything, shot down the story.

 

[Xelor]

...

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

Which do you find more likely?

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.​

-- Peter Carr, spokesperson for Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Russia Investigation​

Look at Buzzfeed's statement that presumably is the one with which the special counsel took objection in the above precisely imprecise (aka, nuanced) and un-disambiguated statement:

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.​

What from those two sentences could be errant? There are many assertions in those two sentences, and it doesn't take much for them to be less than 100% accurate, which is enough for them to be "not accurate" from a factual standpoint, even if in substance they are accurate.

For example:

• "Description of specific statements...and testimony" assertions:
  • The special counsel (SC) learned of the directive through interviews with multiple witnesses:
    • It could well be, for instance, that SC learned of the directive from information gathered by SDNY or some other DoJ unit and based on having received the shared info, SC, in turn, conducted its own interviews in which the same information was with the SC directly shared.
  • The SC learned of the directive through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization:
    • The witnesses the SC interviewed and who shared information about the directive need not have been Trump Organization employees.
    • By the time the SC interviewed Michael Cohen, he may no longer have been a Trump Org. VP.; thus he'd be a witness "formerly" employed by Trump Org.
    • If the SC has testimony from only one Trump Org. employee, the assertion is inaccurate.
  • Cohen then acknowledged those instructions during his interviews with that office:
    • Cohen may have acknowledged the instructions in interviews with DoJ personnel other than the SC's office.
    • The sequencing implied by the above assertion's compositional placement in the Buzzfeed article could be inaccurate.
• "Characterization of documents" assertions:
  • Internal company emails:
    • Emails having only one non-Trump Org. addressee is enough to make that assertion inaccurate.
  • Cache of other documents
    • If the directive is noted or referenced in one rather than many documents, this assertion is inaccurate.

Those are just some of the possible ways in which the Buzzfeed assertions may be inaccurate. Hell, it could be that much of what Buzzfeed didn't come to the SC via Micheal Cohen's testimony, but rather through documents and data provided by people other than Cohen, but that Cohen happened also to attest to and/or describe.

While the SC spokesman, Peter Carr, stated that various of Buzzfeed's "characterizations" and "descriptions" were inaccurate. Fine, but importantly, what Carr didn't say or intimate is that the substance of Buzzfeed's article is errant. His quietude in that regard leaves open the possibility that Buzzfeed misidentified some "trees," calling a spruce a larch, so to speak, which wouldn't be surprising, but is yet accurate in asserting that it's a "boreal forest" comprised necessarily of conifers and not a "tropical" one consisting of deciduous species.

Remember that stuff Mueller issues must be accurate in fact and context -- the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth -- because, well, that's the bar to which first order professionals and principals are held. Such folks don't get to be "loosey goosey" with their assertions because what they say will be met with rigorous scrutiny, and "loosey goosey" doesn't hold up under close scrutiny. "That was the gist of it" doesn't cut the mustard at that level of the "game," except when but a "gist" is all one aims to and is required to give.


Red:
Frankly, I don't think, for now, either of them is expressly lying. I think Buzzfeed may have obtained slightly inaccurate details, perhaps it inaptly paraphrased the input it obtained. Thus I think Buzzfeed could have made some dictional errors, but I don't see anything in Carr's statement that says they got the main theme -- that Trump expressly or tacitly instructed Cohen to lie to Congress -- wrong. I think the general yet specific nature of Carr's statement, I don't think he's lying either.

 

[Harshaw]

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.​

-- Peter Carr, spokesperson for Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Russia Investigation​

Look at Buzzfeed's statement that presumably is the one with which the special counsel took objection in the above precisely imprecise (aka, nuanced) and un-disambiguated statement:

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.​

What from those two sentences could be errant? There are many assertions in those two sentences, and it doesn't take much for them to be less than 100% accurate, which is enough for them to be "not accurate" from a factual standpoint, even if in substance they are accurate.

For example:

****snip for character limit*****

Those are just some of the possible ways in which the Buzzfeed assertions may be inaccurate. Hell, it could be that much of what Buzzfeed didn't come to the SC via Micheal Cohen's testimony, but rather through documents and data provided by people other than Cohen, but that Cohen happened also to attest to and/or describe.

While the SC spokesman, Peter Carr, stated that various of Buzzfeed's "characterizations" and "descriptions" were inaccurate. Fine, but importantly, what Carr didn't say or intimate is that the substance of Buzzfeed's article is errant. His quietude in that regard leaves open the possibility that Buzzfeed misidentified some "trees," calling a spruce a larch, so to speak, which wouldn't be surprising, but is yet accurate in asserting that it's a "boreal forest" comprised necessarily of conifers and not a "tropical" one consisting of deciduous species.

Remember that stuff Mueller issues must be accurate in fact and context -- the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth -- because, well, that's the bar to which first order professionals and principals are held. Such folks don't get to be "loosey goosey" with their assertions because what they say will be met with rigorous scrutiny, and "loosey goosey" doesn't hold up under close scrutiny. "That was the gist of it" doesn't cut the mustard at that level of the "game," except when but a "gist" is all one aims to and is required to give.


Red:
Frankly, I don't think, for now, either of them is expressly lying. I think Buzzfeed may have obtained slightly inaccurate details, perhaps it inaptly paraphrased the input it obtained. Thus I think Buzzfeed could have made some dictional errors, but I don't see anything in Carr's statement that says they got the main theme -- that Trump expressly or tacitly instructed Cohen to lie to Congress -- wrong. I think the general yet specific nature of Carr's statement, I don't think he's lying either.

This assumes that Mueller's office would take such an extraordinary step as commenting that a news story is inaccurate in the fringes when the main gist of it is nonetheless correct.

 

[Chomsky]

What is the problem with my "if"?

Nothing, as long as you don't have a problem with the media's use of it.

 

[Harshaw]

Nothing, as long as you don't have a problem with the media's use of it.

The problem is running with a story as though it's actual news even though they could not confirm it. That's not journalism; that's rumor-mongering.

 

[Chomsky]

How was the statement 'obtuse?' To me, it couldnt be more clear. Mueller, who never comments on anything, shot down the story.

Here's the statement:

“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,” Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller’s office, said.

So what's "not accurate"? The number of documents? The number of times Trump told Cohen to lie? That the law enforcement were SDNY? What?

 

[Xelor]

This assumes that Mueller's office would take such an extraordinary step as commenting that a news story is inaccurate in the fringes when the main gist of it is nonetheless correct.

It's not at all extraordinary to assert that another has errantly characterized the nature of one's own and own organization's activities. Nobody I know of cares to be misrepresented, most especially in public situations that matter, in any way, shape, form or measure. Maybe folks you know don't much care about such things. I and my cohort do.

Perhaps you've seen the phrase I use on DP to indicate that someone's mischaracterized me and/or my remarks? "You just keep thinking that..." That's what I say when the circumstance(s) merit not my going into more detail. Carr's remark is only slightly more illuminating than the one I use...No surprise that, for his situation doesn't allow him the glibness of the phrase I use on DP.

Though I identified one of the Buzzfeed passages that I think may be what the SC had in mind, it could well be that it's not those passages at all and that it's, for instance, Buzzfeed's claim that its characterization of the nature of evidence Mueller has as having come from Mueller's office when the fact is that it didn't. As I said, Carr's statement was "beautifully" ambiguous.


ETA:
What my earlier post assumes is that something leaked out of the Russia investigation and Mueller thus had to respond to it because, unlike everything else we've heard about the SC's work -- all of which came from witnesses, their attorneys, and Mueller's court documents -- this is alleged to have come from his office/the DoJ.

 

[Mach]

It's like you guys purposely didn't read what I actually wrote. I made no such blanket statement that BuzzFeed's misdeeds in and of themselves tarnish all of the media. I stated conditions under which it would, with an "if."

No, that's not what you wrote, you wrote what we claimed, and we corrected you. An in typical Harshaw fashion, you just can't correct yourself, you have to double-down, and accuse us of being wrong.

Here's your attempt at communication:

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.

If someone really meant what you're now backpedaling to, they might write something like this:

Buzzfeed's credibility is on the line, but if MSM backs them, their credibility would also be on the line.
or
Buzzfeed's credibility is on the line, and MSM's may also be on the line. (followed by how it might fulfill the "may also be")/

But you didn't Harshaw, you were very clear in your declaration. You did not say MSM credibility MAY be on the line. You did not say it MIGHT be, if so and so happens. There is no conditional there.
but so is the credibility of the rest of the news media.
That's unconditional.

Buzzfeed's credibly is on the line.
MSM's credibility is on the line.

Do not tell us that's not the case, because clearly it is.

Now, your next statement does have an if, and it correctly belongs in the second statement, where you wrote it.
If MSM circles the wagons around the story
MSM will deserve all of the shots of fake news aimed at them.

This goes a step further than saying MSM will take a hit if they circle the wagons. In bizarre fashion, you make a much broader claim...that ALL l shots at MSM (past 2 years!?!)...whether they were justified or complete B.S. from Trump and right wing media and his base...ALL of it, will be justified, if MSM makes ONE error, that there is no evidence they have or will make. Which is absurd.

All you had to do was clarify, but you couldn't could you? You had to tell us we're all idiots, and you're correct. Typical crap.
Once again:
What evidence do you have to back your claim that MSM is inclined to "circle the wagons" around Buzzfeed?
I have seen all major news media NOT corroborate Buzzfeed, and even some reporting (Farrow) outright saying their own sources do not agree with Buzzfeed. I would be very interested to know what MSM organization has backed Buzzfeed with their own reporting/sourcing...that would be a big story.

Some of us are trying to eek some value out of you thread, but you seem hell bent on attacking us for responding appropriately.

 

[madasheck]

The "if true" BuzzFeed yarn about hard evidence of Trump commanding perjury was being aired on many MSM outlets along with all manner of dire predictions for Trump et al. Putting so much faith in two alleged to be trustworthy anonymous sources about documentation never seen by the BuzzFeed staff is quite a stretch.

I heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend who, heard it from another that...

(snip)

Except that's not how it works. Buzzfeed wouldn't have gone with it without vetting it.