HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Buzzfeed Double-Down!

Sun Jan 20, 2019, 06:13 PM

Buzzfeed Double-Down!

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/20/media/buzzfeed-ben-smith-anthony-cormier/index.html

BuzzFeed says its sources are "standing behind" the bombshell report about the special counsel investigation.
"We're being told to stand our ground. Our reporting is going to be borne out to be accurate, and we're 100% behind it," investigative reporter Anthony Cormier told CNN's Brian Stelter on "Reliable Sources" Sunday.

This is truly a double-down in the blackjack sense, when you double your bet in return for one hit, and that's something a knowledgeable player does when the play offers a greater average return than not doubling down. We don't know how this will turn out, but Buzzfeed is placing a huge bet on a very daring play and this is going to be a very exciting thing to watch.

31 replies, 4839 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply Buzzfeed Double-Down! (Original post)
Towlie Jan 2019 OP
PJMcK Jan 2019 #1
Cracklin Charlie Jan 2019 #3
PJMcK Jan 2019 #4
Cuthbert Allgood Jan 2019 #14
procon Jan 2019 #2
cwydro Jan 2019 #10
Towlie Jan 2019 #17
OnDoutside Jan 2019 #5
triron Jan 2019 #7
OnDoutside Jan 2019 #9
CaptainTruth Jan 2019 #6
triron Jan 2019 #8
Bonx Jan 2019 #11
Towlie Jan 2019 #12
triron Jan 2019 #13
DeminPennswoods Jan 2019 #15
Pepsidog Jan 2019 #18
maxsolomon Jan 2019 #24
Pepsidog Jan 2019 #25
maxsolomon Jan 2019 #26
chimpymustgo Jan 2019 #30
Pepsidog Jan 2019 #31
triron Jan 2019 #16
Ford_Prefect Jan 2019 #19
triron Jan 2019 #20
DeminPennswoods Jan 2019 #21
triron Jan 2019 #22
triron Jan 2019 #23
redstatebluegirl Jan 2019 #27
matt819 Jan 2019 #28
Joe941 Jan 2019 #29

Response to Towlie (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2019, 06:21 PM

1. It's a huge bet

If they're proven wrong, BuzzFeed would be finished. Same for the reporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PJMcK (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 20, 2019, 06:25 PM

3. Can you briefly synopsize this news?

I am in a truck in south Texas. So hard to keep up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cracklin Charlie (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 20, 2019, 06:27 PM

4. BuzzFeed reported that Mueller had evidence that Trump suborned perjury

They had two sources who claimed that Cohen will testify that Trump told him to lie in his Congressional testimony.

Mueller's office released a vague statement saying that the BuzzFeed report was not accurate but didn't clarify so it was unclear what it meant.

Now BuzzFeed is saying that they are standing by their story. If they're right, they'll be very successful. If they're wrong, they'll have lost all credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PJMcK (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 20, 2019, 08:22 PM

14. Leopold seems to have quite a few lives in him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Towlie (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2019, 06:23 PM

2. While I really want their allegations to be validated,

but I'm troubled that they have not expanded their story to provide additional details and sources to support their contention. I'm also skeptical that no other news agency has stepped forward to corroborate their reporting with independent information.

It could still happen, and I hope it does, so I'm just sitting back, uncommitted, with eyes wide open for now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 20, 2019, 07:47 PM

10. I'm with you.

Time will tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 20, 2019, 08:39 PM

17. It's easy to criticize anonymous sources, but they're really more credible than they might seem.

News agencies wouldn't have such sources if they didn't agree to maintaining anonymity, so instead, an agency vets their source, using resources far more expansive and superior to anything we have, and then they stake their reputation on their confidence in that source. If an agency simply reported that a certain person told them something then that agency would be safe from criticism and the task would fall upon their readers/viewers to decide if the source was credible.

The greater the reputation of a news source, the greater the confidence you can have in the reports they relay from their anonymous sources, because even if you don't know who the anonymous source is you can be sure the agency knows and trusts them, and you trust the agency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Towlie (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2019, 06:40 PM

5. The question I have with this is whether Trump's lawyers or associates, have fed this to Buzzfeed to

see what might come out from the other side. Would Buzzfeed trade in this kiteflying ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 20, 2019, 07:10 PM

7. Oh come now, I don't don't think they are fools.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triron (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 20, 2019, 07:28 PM

9. I'm not saying they are, but if they are presented with a story that Trump told Cohen to lie, and

Trump associates gave them enough to go on, why wouldn't they run with it ? We already know that Guiliani has pushed out stuff to get ahead of the story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Towlie (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2019, 06:53 PM

6. I still think it's possible Don Jr told Cohen to lie, that's what SCO says isn't accurate.


If it was Don Jr who directly told Cohen to lie then the SCO statement makes sense, & Ronan Farrow's statement, from his source, makes perfect sense. He stressed that Trump didn't "directly" tell Cohen to lie. Trump might have talked to Jr about it & then Jr directly told Cohen to lie.

Also, Mueller filings refer to "Individual 2" who was working on the Moscow deal. Could Individual 2 be the son of Individual 1?

Plus, there are references to supporting documents, like emails, & we know Trump doesn't use email, but Jr does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Towlie (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2019, 07:20 PM

8. Damn, this is intriguing!

Could anonymous FBI agents be sending a red flag about what is going on with
the mueller investigation (hint: it's not Mueller's doing)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Towlie (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2019, 07:51 PM

11. Do we believe Jason Leopold or Mueller?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonx (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 20, 2019, 08:01 PM

12. They aren't mutually exclusive.

And I don't feel called upon to believe anything at this point, except that there's a lot riding upon how this unfolds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Towlie (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 20, 2019, 08:15 PM

13. Appears that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Towlie (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2019, 08:26 PM

15. Josh Marshall culls the wheat from the chaff


Again, whether and how he lied about it is legally interesting. But thatís the cover-up rather than the thing itself. That deal was with sanctioned individuals and sanctioned banks. Whether it was even legal to be entering into the negotiations is not clear to me. But certainly the post-2014 sanctions against Russia had to be lifted before the deal could be finalized. That is the central issue. Itís not simply that Trump had ďbusinessĒ with Russia and deceived the public about it during the campaign and after. Itís more specific and direct. Why was Trump so solicitous of Russia and Vladimir Putin during the campaign? Well, a lot of possible reasons. But a major and likely the major reason was because Putin was dangling a multi-hundreds of millions of dollars payday in front of him. Thatís a big incentive, especially for Donald Trump.

To get that money, Trump had to court Putin and heíd eventually need to lift sanctions against him.


https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-hotel-deal-is-really-all-that-matters

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeminPennswoods (Reply #15)

Sun Jan 20, 2019, 09:03 PM

18. Makes sense. Great post. Trump is screwed so many ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pepsidog (Reply #18)

Mon Jan 21, 2019, 02:24 PM

24. TBD. He could still wriggle out of the trap and get re-elected.

That's how little faith I have in my fellow Americans.

What's certain is that WE are screwed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #24)

Mon Jan 21, 2019, 02:56 PM

25. True. Though I doubt he can take Pa. Mi and Wis again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pepsidog (Reply #25)

Mon Jan 21, 2019, 03:01 PM

26. As they say in Yiddish:

Fun dayn moyl zu Got's oyem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pepsidog (Reply #25)

Mon Jan 21, 2019, 04:09 PM

30. Doubt he took them before. Will always believe they cheated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chimpymustgo (Reply #30)

Mon Jan 21, 2019, 04:14 PM

31. I wish I would have said that. After 2000 Bush v Gore all the

polling models were looked at and redone. 16 years later the polls were again wrong. I donít think so. Just like Rs stole the election in 2000 they did it again in 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Towlie (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2019, 08:32 PM

16. Listening to MSNBC just now they were on a discreditation attack

of Buzzfeed it seemed to me. I turned it off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triron (Reply #16)

Sun Jan 20, 2019, 09:13 PM

19. Watergate era attacks on the messenger (WAPO) looked much the same.

The sharks are poised to bite at nearly any bait and they ARE being baited by those who trade on confusion rather than clarity. Lord Rupert is laughing at this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ford_Prefect (Reply #19)

Sun Jan 20, 2019, 11:24 PM

20. Sometimes I don't feel good about Carol Loennig. She almost labeled them "fake news".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triron (Reply #20)

Mon Jan 21, 2019, 12:15 AM

21. The reporters who were all scooped by Buzzfeed

are probably feeling just a little jealous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Towlie (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2019, 01:22 AM

22. knr

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Towlie (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2019, 02:12 PM

23. kick for visibility

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Towlie (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2019, 03:02 PM

27. I wonder if it is something Mueller just doesn't want out right now.

It may jeopardize his case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Towlie (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2019, 03:55 PM

28. You say it's a double down bet

I wouldn't use that characterization.

A source, whether of a journalist or an intelligence service, gets ranked. Access, accuracy, verifiability, reliability over time, confirmations over time from other sources or from information released publicly. Mueller's office, for whatever reasons, threw Buzzfeed's reporting into question.

Buzzfeed says, hang on a minute, Mr. M, we're pretty confident. On Monday, Buzzfeed says, hey, Mr. M, we're darn confident.

At this point, it's no longer a bet, IMHO.

They have a source - probably multiple sources. They have determined that these sources have access to the information. The sources have been shown to be reliable, which means that information they provided previously has proven to be spot on, i.e., consistent, correct, high-level, etc., etc. Whether the source is in Mueller's office is unknown. I would guess probably not. But the information that Mueller has received on this issue was available from any number of sources (even if that number is very small). That's where the Buzzfeed information has to be coming from. That may require an awful lot of parsing in terms of both accuracy and protecting sources. That's par for the course for investigative journalists.

So, is it really a bet if the confidence level is sufficiently high. Unless Buzzfeed is fucking around in some way, I would say that it's not a bet, but a sure thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Towlie (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2019, 03:57 PM

29. I bet its true! Who knows what Mueller was up to, but time will tell.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread