Latest Breaking News

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)

31. No, same thing.

Fri Jan 18, 2019, 09:19 PM

Jan 2019

Running with a story without confirmation. Buzzfeed is not a recognized widespread news org. (as far as I know), so they can get away with that. But a reporter should confirm or verify before presenting it as fact. That's what Rather did. He reported a story as true, when in fact, he'd bypassed the verification step. It turned out to be false.

Maddow said a trick like that was tried on her some months ago. But she and her staff stuck to their process, couldn't verify it, so didn't report it....and it turned out to be a trick. She passed w/flying colors.

The news stations will be fine, if they presented the story as written...that the documents had not been seen, that they had not confirmed or verified he story...so they just pass on Buzzfeed's story. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm guessing that's how it was presented, too. I know CNN has an article on its site about the "checkered past" of the article's authors, regarding this bombshell story and whether it can be relief on. So CNN is in the clear.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

120 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Mueller investigation goes on the record to dispute BuzzFeed report [View all] oberliner Jan 2019 OP

This is clarification, not an actual refutation. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #1

"Not accurate" is an actual refutation oberliner Jan 2019 #4

The question is what part. cstanleytech Jan 2019 #71

Sorry, the special counsel does not play those games. Those are left up to people like still_one Jan 2019 #89

I am not saying they are playing games rather I am pointing out they kept it vague probably because cstanleytech Jan 2019 #92

Not it's not. jberryhill Jan 2019 #84

So are you implying that the special counsel is playing games like rudy giuliani? still_one Jan 2019 #91

They aren't going to get into the weeds of "this, not that" jberryhill Jan 2019 #96

Then the only reason I can fathom why Mueller would even issue an ambiguous statement on still_one Jan 2019 #99

Sounds to me like Carr's just disputing "description of statements" by the Special Counsel's office. SunSeeker Jan 2019 #97

Since red is the adjective, Cold War Spook Jan 2019 #105

It may be a red bikini brief jberryhill Jan 2019 #108

It was a refutation. former9thward Jan 2019 #6

The Special Counsel knows how to say a story is not true. He didn't do that. SunSeeker Jan 2019 #103

Now you are telling us what "the issue Mueller had" with the article. former9thward Jan 2019 #115

No, I'm going by what Carr's actual statement says. SunSeeker Jan 2019 #118

It means the article is incorrect and cannot be relied on. Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #11

Or, it means only that some of the information is incorrect. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #15

If you read about this on CNN site, it reports on it... Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #23

Agreed. eom guillaumeb Jan 2019 #25

Or a comma was in the wrong place. Lawyers LiberalArkie Jan 2019 #24

Or conclusions were drawn by the reporter that Mueller has not made. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #27

Not incorrect, "not accurate". We don't know what wasn't accurate. For example: George II Jan 2019 #85

I'm disappointed like everyone, but all the speculation has gotten out of Hoyt Jan 2019 #32

However, guillaumeb Jan 2019 #33

Fucking Jason Leopold (nt) Recursion Jan 2019 #2

Yep. Once again. N/t. gldstwmn Jan 2019 #5

Yep. Leopold has cred issues. nt Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #12

This might be of interest: guillaumeb Jan 2019 #34

That's irrelevant. Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #42

Again, I agree with you. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #47

Sounds like Barr doesn't plan on letting the public see the report. Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #51

I am certain the Mueller is aware of this, guillaumeb Jan 2019 #56

Working for Trump, Maybe? dumpTrump Dumptruck Jan 2019 #19

DU remembers..... FarPoint Jan 2019 #107

CNN and msnbc will catch hell Watchfoxheadexplodes Jan 2019 #3

Why would CNN catch hell? It printed an article that Leopold has questionable past... Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #16

In their news articles, yes metalbot Jan 2019 #74

"If true." As long as they presented the story as "Buzzfeed reported...." Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #94

I don't know - personally, I think it's kind of a cop out for a reputable news organization to Midwestern Democrat Jan 2019 #117

That's legitimate...reporting what another reputable org. has reported... Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #120

With plenty of "thanks for your 'concern' replies." MadDAsHell Jan 2019 #104

(Can't resist being devil's advocate here): What if it's actually MUCH worse for tRump, fierywoman Jan 2019 #7

That's what I wondered.... Sancho Jan 2019 #21

Then they wouldn't have bothered saying anything muriel_volestrangler Jan 2019 #109

Ugh. Glimmer of Hope Jan 2019 #8

"not accurate" doesn't mean not true agingdem Jan 2019 #9

When some relevant fact is reported in an article is shown to be false, then the whole article Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #17

Remember what happened to Dan Rather? MissKat Jan 2019 #10

Yes, I thought about that. Jumping on the bandwagon w/o confirmation... Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #18

An entirely differenet situation. Mueller is NOT part of this. Whatever Mueller has is independent still_one Jan 2019 #20

No, same thing. Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #31

What I am saying is the integrity of the Mueller investigation is still intact. They made it clear still_one Jan 2019 #43

Oh, no. This doesn't affect the cred of the Mueller investigation at all, IMO. nt Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #55

I understand your point now, I was focusing on the Mueller investigation, not the "Buzz Feed" still_one Jan 2019 #65

No, Mueller will be fine MissKat Jan 2019 #64

and that was the point HoneyComb was making, and I was focused on the Mueller investigation, still_one Jan 2019 #75

The statement said that the characterizations "are not accurate", they could be even worse for trump George II Jan 2019 #13

That wouldn't warrant a statement. But a related possibility... thesquanderer Jan 2019 #22

Yes it could, but it is clear that the buzzfeed report regarding trump telling Cohen to lie is not still_one Jan 2019 #28

Mueller just Strengthened his Cred dumpTrump Dumptruck Jan 2019 #14

And Leopold destroyed his (and Buzzfeed News in the process) oberliner Jan 2019 #29

I think the jury's out on that -- and the whole story. pnwmom Jan 2019 #45

News outlets should not run with stories with "characterizations" that are "not accurate" oberliner Jan 2019 #48

I agree still_one Jan 2019 #30

This was very carefully worded.... RHMerriman Jan 2019 #38

I agree. For example, if Mueller had TAPE RECORDINGS of DT (and we know Cohen liked to make them) pnwmom Jan 2019 #40

Yep. There's a reason all these people are attorneys... RHMerriman Jan 2019 #46

My concern when it was leaked was a possible Dan Rather event, mastermind Jan 2019 #61

Yeah... if this journalistic report was flat out wrong, there's a way to say that... RHMerriman Jan 2019 #73

Bingo orangecrush Jan 2019 #101

Well it was fun while it lasted... budkin Jan 2019 #26

Yup! Sinistrous Jan 2019 #37

If source is an email, hard to believe BuzzFeed would run with this without seeing the original. Snellius Jan 2019 #35

Unless Buzzfeed is not an actual legitimate news source oberliner Jan 2019 #44

I think it's a legit news source -- but it's too early to know how this story will shake out. pnwmom Jan 2019 #50

It's likely that Buzzfeed's own staff members wrote and edited their Wikipedia entry oberliner Jan 2019 #52

Did you hear Ben Smith on Chris Hayes right now? He's still standing by the story. pnwmom Jan 2019 #63

He also has had issues with accuracy in the past oberliner Jan 2019 #86

Jason Leopold and Anthony Cormier do not have a reputable past. Quirky and unstable at best. Snellius Jan 2019 #62

What has Pulitzer prize winner Anthony Cormier done that is not "reputable"? pnwmom Jan 2019 #66

Corrected for Cormier. Thinking of this on Leopold: Snellius Jan 2019 #80

Buzzfeed News is an award-winning news source obamanut2012 Jan 2019 #79

Separate from what? oberliner Jan 2019 #82

Didn't see that coming. Fuzzpope Jan 2019 #36

"are not accurate." meaning, you have a comma where a period should be. nt mastermind Jan 2019 #39

Right - I'm sure that's what Mueller wanted to make sure to clarify oberliner Jan 2019 #41

The orange motherfucker is going to get away with it. hamsterjill Jan 2019 #49

Of course he is, the Senate will never convict no matter what budkin Jan 2019 #54

It is possible, (anything is possible) that the actual report is worse for Trump than anyone, Stuart G Jan 2019 #53

That is definitely possible oberliner Jan 2019 #58

Very Comey-esque statement matt819 Jan 2019 #57

this was the biggest "bombshell" yet amcgrath Jan 2019 #59

Why run a new story this big if it has potential inaccuracies? oberliner Jan 2019 #60

They gave the story to the SC office for comment 24 hours ago. If the SC office pnwmom Jan 2019 #67

You are correct, there are "inaccuracies, not a denial" (or not a total denial) Stuart G Jan 2019 #69

Inaccurate is not equal to untrue. Ford_Prefect Jan 2019 #68

Inaccurate means you don't run the story oberliner Jan 2019 #70

Buzzfeed is so far from Fox news. Ford_Prefect Jan 2019 #76

"...we urge the Special Counsel to make clear what he's disputing." SunSeeker Jan 2019 #72

They did. They said the Buzz Feed report is not accurate. That means the allegations that Buzz still_one Jan 2019 #81

Carr's statement did not dispute Buzzfeed's report that Trump got Cohen to lie. SunSeeker Jan 2019 #95

I can buy that still_one Jan 2019 #100

What evidence did the Buzzfeed story provide to support that assertion? oberliner Jan 2019 #113

It cited two unnamed sources, like journalists tend to do. nt SunSeeker Jan 2019 #119

Buzzfeed has no credibility but some of this is moot keepFocused06 Jan 2019 #77

But Trump will still claim that anyway oberliner Jan 2019 #78

Sure he will, so what? The Mueller investigation's credibility is intact still_one Jan 2019 #83

Yes, not only is the Mueller investigation's credibility intact, it is still ongoing. Stuart G Jan 2019 #87

Trump screwed himself keepFocused06 Jan 2019 #88

Welcome to Democratic Underground...good luck..!! Stuart G Jan 2019 #93

Who cars what a serial liar claims. rockfordfile Jan 2019 #90

I wondered about this reporting because... srobertss Jan 2019 #98

Mueller denying it Turbineguy Jan 2019 #102

The "Characterization" is "Not Accurate" DallasNE Jan 2019 #106

Link to DW nitpicker Jan 2019 #110

BuzzFeed is not helping. Legally removing Trump requires the case to be properly built Optical.Catalyst Jan 2019 #111

yup, agreed. n/t MBS Jan 2019 #112

This is not a good thing for the investigation IMO. Calista241 Jan 2019 #114

Slightly off topic but has FOX ever had to print a retraction for any of its ridiculous "reporting"? Mr. Ected Jan 2019 #116