Tale of 2 Campaigns: Trump Ends His Dancing With YUGE Crowd, Kamala Ends...
EN FUEGO: Megyn Kelly Brings the HEAT at Trump Rally in Fiery Closing...
Fool of Hard Knocks: Kamala Slammed for Obviously Staged Neighborhood Canvassing Video (Wa...
Plane Exhausted: Kamala Appears to Have Lost Her Fight on Final Flight from...
Meghan McCain Challenges Democrats to Define a Woman Igniting a Political Firestorm
I'm Worried About the Election, but So Are Kamala Harris' Supporters
Dueling Pollsters Show Nevada As a Toss-Up or Leaning Trump, No Wonder...
Right on Time 'The Atlantic' (Owned by Kamala's Dear Friend) Claims Trump Causes...
Nothing Is Making Van Jones Feel Happy About Pennsylvania
Election Day SALE: 60% Off VIP Membership
Rep. Rashida Tlaib: Israel Bombed Children Waiting for Polio Vaccine
Abortion and COVID Obsessed Doctor Wonders How the Election is Even Close
Even Our Dogs Know: A Vote for Trump Is a Vote For America...
Arizona -- What All the Data Shows With Less Than 24 Hours to...
American Hero Perishes in Controversial Biden/Harris Authorized Gaza Pier Mission

Former BuzzFeed (RIP) editor in chief Ben Smith defends his decision to publish bogus Steele dossier

By now, you’ve probably heard about BuzzFeed News shutting down. Just came outta nowhere, right?

Anyway, news of BuzzFeed’s demise comes at a very interesting time. Because it just so happens that The Atlantic has a new piece today written by former BuzzFeed editor in chief Ben Smith (the piece is actually adapted from Smith’s aptly named forthcoming book “Traffic: Genius, Rivalry, and Delusion in the Billion-Dollar Race to Go Viral”) about his decision to publish the bogus Steele dossier back when he was running the show.

Advertisement

With a little help from David Brock, no less:

Anything for clicks! No, seriously. Ben Smith did this for clicks. Because if you keep something a secret, how can you get clicks?

Advertisement

Let the record show that Smith is immensely proud of himself.

Smith writes:

Imagine the alternative, a world in which the American public knows that there is a secret document making murky allegations that the president-elect has been compromised, a document that is being investigated by the FBI, that the president-elect and the outgoing president have been briefed on, and that everyone who is anyone has seen—but that they can’t. This would, if anything, produce darker speculation. It might have made the allegations seem more credible than they were.

We faced a difficult series of lawsuits, but we won them all, in part because we’d maintained our journalistic distance. We argued, successfully, that we were not making these claims ourselves; we were making the “fair report” of what amounted to a government document. We’d published the dossier while holding it at arm’s length, noting that we hadn’t been able to verify or knock down its claims—even if we had inadvertently launched a million conspiracy theories in the process.

I have no pat conclusion. If I had to do it again, I would publish the dossier—we couldn’t suppress it, not once CNN had discussed it and its implications on air. But I would hold more tightly to the document, so that no one could read it without reading what we knew about it—that we weren’t sure it was true, and in fact we had noticed errors in it. Releasing a document that could be shared without context—and this is as true of the WikiLeaks material as it is of the dossier—created partisan symbols, not crowdsourced analysis.

In technical terms, that means I wouldn’t simply publish it as a PDF, destined to float free from our earnest caveats. At best, we could have published the document as screenshots attached to the context we had and the context we would learn. Perhaps in some small way, this would have limited its transformation from a set of claims into a banner of the “resistance.” But I’m not under the illusion that journalists could have contained its wildfire spread, any more than I think we could have concealed it.

I’m now leading a news organization, Semafor, that is also rooted in transparency. But I no longer think transparency means that journalists can be simple conduits for facts, obscuring our own points of view, leaving our audiences to figure it out. The best we can do, I think, is to lay our cards on the table in separate piles: Here are the facts, and here’s what we think they mean—and to retain some humility about the difference between the two.

Advertisement

If Semafor is half the “news organization” that BuzzFeed was, well, let’s just say that Semafor employees shouldn’t get business cards printed just yet.

***

Related:

BuzzFeed: Publishing explosive and unverified allegations against Trump ‘how we see the job of reporters’

Rake, meet face! BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith accidentally admits his site’s guilty of lazy ‘journalism’ [screenshots]

Fatality: Elon Musk drops Ben Smith and Semafor over bad journalism and ‘massive conflict of interest’

***

Do you enjoy Twitchy’s conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.  Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement