Hacker News Reader

Comment by casiotone | Hacker News Reader

Just as soon as they chip in with some real journalists

If only the journalists that reported these stories in 2017 at BuzzFeed were real:

* Helping to free an innocent man who'd spent 23 years behind bars

* Exposing the true scale of Russia's targeted assassinations in the West — and how UK and US authorities have turned a blind eye

* Sexual assault at Massage Envy

* A dirty offshore bank — and its blue-chip Western enablers and protectors

* BP's dangerous accidents in Alaska

* The US government's shadowy national security contractors

* Whistleblowers: FBI software contains Russian-made code

and more: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/markschoofs/the-year-in...

Okay. I get it. You're using the low-quality "alternative news" articles with clickbait headlines to draw in short attention span readers because those are your cash cows. Having that steady advertising income allows you to finance real journalism like the things you listed that might not be able to stand on their own in the current trend-or-die marketplace.

So let's make a deal. If I pay a subscription, will you only give me the good headlines and not spam me with the crappy stuff I don't want to see?

Just go to buzzfeednews.com instead of buzzfeed.com

Not to mention publishing the Steele dossier

That's a great example of how shoddy Buzzfeed's journalism is and why they shouldn't be supported.

> BuzzFeed was harshly criticized for publishing what Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan called "scurrilous allegations dressed up as an intelligence report meant to damage Donald Trump"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier#P...

Hrm. In hindsight, it seems obviously preferable that the public got to view this dossier. It would have been hard to have an informed opinion about e.g. the Strozk situation without knowing about the dossier and it’s contents.

Presenting unsubstantiated rumors as news is not "obviously preferable".

And Sullivan was wrong. Take a read of the “Veracity” section of that article.

I read it and it's still clearly unsubstantiated allegations and not factual news.

Doesn't seem shoddy to me. I agree completely with the quote from buzzfeeds executive staff. The materials were newsworthy because they were "in wide circulation at the highest levels of American government and media".

I trust BuzzFeeds investigative journalism about as far as I could throw it without an advertorial falling out

You can't build a reputation on garbage clickbait, and then expect people to take you seriously on-demand. Integrity isn't a light switch that you can flick on and off. To take any investigative piece seriously, I have to have some trust for the people that produced it, and I don't trust Buzzfeed to be anything other than low-quality, no-integrity mindless garbage.

I see you're being down voted into nothingness (ironic when the topic is about integrity, journalism, free speech) but I agree.

Buzzfeed has been garbage for years at least here in Canada, some pretty vile people work there (Scaachi Koul). I too can't take them seriously considering their history. Maybe the US version is better and maybe I will find them trustworthy but I can't see it happening anytime soon.

Even the NYT after that disaster with the hiring of Sarah Jeong. I didn't realize it was OK to be racist as a retort I foolishly choose the option of just never being racist.

Trust takes years to develop but will disappear in an instant.

> You can't build a reputation on garbage clickbait, and then expect people to take you seriously on-demand.

Look back at how currently reputable publications got their start. Look at what the WSJ editorial page publishes today.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com