How believable is Buzzfeed?

[CitizenBBN]

You know, the media outlet that the mainstream media ran with this past week and weekend?

Read a little history of the founder:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/john...y-name-without

Reader's digest version:

The CEO and founder didn't like John Lott, noted pro-gun researcher and writer, so he created a website with John's name in it, pretended it was him, and sent out 100s of thousands of emails pretending to be him to lobby against a pro-gun law that protected manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits. Refused to take it down, and finally was forced through a shell company to settle, but did it all. That's only part of the depths to which he has sunk, but it's telling.

it's scary, and even scarier this guy is being cited when he has all of the credibility of Infowars. Except of course Infowars is extreme right wing and is thus dismissed and even banned on social media, whereas Buzzfeed is cited by CNN, The Post, The Times, MSNBC and about 100 members of Congress.

But hey, in the modern world it's more important to be first than to be accurate.

[CitizenBBN]

FWIW, i didn't post about this re Trump either way. I have no idea what he did or didn't do, and I have no illusions that i've watched 100s of sworn officials and others lie their ass off in front of Congress. We can start with CIA director John Brennan just as a recent completely caught red handed example.

The point is what the internet can now do to people, how it's even harder to know truth from fiction, how lives can be ruined without a trial or a hearing or even a thought.

We're so very close to living in the Matrix. Where almost nothing you see is really what is going on and, given our very broad rights of free speech, it can be weaponized to actually reduce free speech in the end.

[Catonahottinroof]

Concerning the internet, take the Covington Catholic boys in DC with the Native Americans. Secondary video proves it’s not as reported, but it’s almost too late to correct it...due to the internet, social media....and slanted politics.

[UKHistory]

It is important with all sources to way skeptically. You respect the Washington post more than I do a lot of papers

But they hired and retained Feinstein. That says something

With regards to Covington catholic, a one dimensional photo (even if not manipulated) and sound bite video doesn’t put things into complete context.

Everyone has bias and all stories are written from a point of view.

Objective journalism with just facts is hard. And even harder in a 24 hour news cycle.

[KSRBEvans]

Honestly, I don't trust any one media outlet. They're groups of humans and subject to human biases and human error.

[CitizenBBN]

Honestly, I don't trust any one media outlet. They're groups of humans and subject to human biases and human error.

There's the "honest bias" of a media person with certain views clearly saying they have those views and reporting things within that framework. it's biased, but it's honest. You know where they stand, you know they are making a case as much or more than regurgitating an event. not ideal for "hard news' but at least you can go with it.

Then there's "dishonest but non-criminal bias", where a person doesn't even know how biased they are, or they distort facts to an appalling degree to make their case, and most importantly they rarely if ever admit their bias. many don't have a clue they even are biased as they live in their vacuum.

the last, the worst, and IMO Buzzfeed is in this group (as is infowars on the right), are people consciously presenting false information or information so removed from context as to be false, and intentionally spreading that to pull people to their side. this is the "ends justify the means" crowd on steroids.

Infowars rightly shoudl be questioned on the right for claims such as the Sandy Hook shooting being either a conspiracy or not even having happened (like how 9/11 was an Israeli or Bush plot), but Buzzfeed with this history of behavior clearly should be on the same level, and no media outlet from the other 2 groups should ever run with anything such a place reports.

What's interesting to me is none of them would ever in a million years have given airtime and ink to an Infowars story without corroboration, but they ran with Buzzfeed's story despite being unable to get any from their sources simply b/c they happened to want Buzzfeed's story to be true.

Which of course exposes them as being that 2nd kind of media bias above.