Buzzfeed Editor Smith Clashes With CNN’s Stelter on Trump Dossier

[Chris_Michael]

Apparently, Yahoo!News is not good enough. So, I went to Breitbart and look what was on the front page!

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017...h-clashes-with-cnns-stelter-on-trump-dossier/

Fake News Vs. Fake News

Sunday on CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” host Brian Stelter debated BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith over BuzzFeed News’ decision to publish an unverified dossier about President-elect Donald Trump and Russia.

STELTER: Were you trying to just get clicks?

SMITH: I think Sean quoted me in saying it was unverified. There’s obviously an attempt right now to divide the press, to turn us on each other and turn reasonable differences about editorial decisions into screaming matches between us on this show. I think that’s a trap that the media has repeatedly fallen into over the last couple of years. I think it’s better not to right now.

STELTER: There’s a tension between there’s reasons to have unity and the other hand as Jake Tapper said what you did is irresponsible and that hurts us all.

SMITH: I wouldn’t say it was irresponsible to say we have a secret document and we’re not going to share it. I would disagree with that but I think it’s a reasonable thought.

STELTER: It’s not possible to have unity in the press corps if Buzzfeed is acting more like Wikileaks just dumping material on the internet and telling the audience to decide if it’s true or not.

SMITH: I think we reported a very important story —

STELTER: there’s a difference between publishing and reporting.

SMITH: We explained the origin of the document. we described the extent to which it was accurate and inaccurate and we shared information that was being — by the way that not just the head of the CIA, dozens if not hundreds of journalists, intelligence officials, elected leaders were seeing and acting on. I do think when you have a document in that kind of circulation among the country’s elites at the center of an incredibly heated political battle, the argument of keeping it away from the American people has to be really really strong.

Now, who the fuck was it defending BUZZFEED? Because if you use Buzzfeed as your source, I'm going to use Alex Fucking Jones and Breitbart. Alternatively, I can go back to my normal Yahoo!News and you can stop complaining about my lack of reading the articles because they put videos in your face. Besides, it's not like reading the articles matters. The last time I actually read a Yahoo!News article, they called Cam Newton "Cal Newton." >.<

 

[JackLuis]

Lets face the fact that most of the LSM is slanted. Some of it, like Fox, is obvious, most is like NBC/ABC, is click bait and establishment propaganda. There are some news organizations that are not as bad as others but the level of intellectual honesty and objectivity is pretty low.

Here on Lit you can see that people want to view a news source as "Truth" or "Lies", depending upon which side of the argument they are on. No one seems to take a balanced approach and say that all stories are inevitably slanted, if only due to lack of knowledge of the reporter.

I see the recent "Trump Mania" as proving my point. People are either "For Him" or "Against Him", very few just take him at his word and laugh.

I find Counterpunch to be one of the few sites that discuss items with any kind of critical thought, presenting rational arguments to support their thesis. If the NYT and WaPo adopted this sort of objectivity and integrity I might change my opinion.