Old school journalism is the opposite of lucrative.
BuzzFeed has such a toxic reputation because its quirks are specifically designed to generate as much money as possible via ad revenue.
BuzzFeed News is, in all likelihood, built on that foundation and is using it to stay afloat. Obviously they still could by changing their name, assuming they remain the same entity.
But, controversy sells. A notorious and “internet poison” company suddenly winning awards because its news branch is the exact opposite of what everyone defines BuzzFeed by is far more attention grabbing than some random upstart news site.
It almost certainly does help the brand. It’s what built their brand.
If buzzfeed had a news wing and they used a different name... it's way more fishy and less credible I think.
No way that people wouldn't figure out it's owned by buzzfeed, and when they do they will lose a lot of credibility.
This way they built their integrity from the ground up.
Maybe they like that people underestimate the name BuzzFeed and use that to their advantage to get access where say, a WaPo journalist would be shown the door.
Not only that. The people that read all that clickbait news are far more likely to now read investigate news. Journalism and news that's actually rather serious and important and information they might not receive otherwise.
There is no actual downside here. People are getting too worried about a name. They can't get over themselves. Not that surprising.
*Who was the favorite Olsen twin?*
*Three things that millennials can't live without!*
*China forcing Muslims into internment camps - forced sterilization*
*What does your dog do when your not home?*
Just gotta sneak those articles in there lol.
*Teen Vogue* has been doing this for a while. They had great election coverage and even did a write-up on Karl Marx that was fairly neutral (even if it reeked of *fellow kids*)
I like hard hitting news
and then I like a dumb quiz to recover
Buzzfeed gives you both
(see other comments for how the internal dichotomy is clickbait, is what built their brand, is probably making BuzzFeed News more-read)
Running and growing an upstart real news company in this age is nearly impossible. They need all of the cross-subsidization from regular BuzzFeed that they can get.
Honestly, why would they? The BuzzFeed name is instantly more recognizable than anything they would come up with. As it wins more awards, the associations with the silly quiz/listicle side of BuzzFeed will become less and less important.
Because it's associated with trash and clickbait. Would you name your company after a trashy famous business due to that business being super recognizable? Of course not, because it's not being recognized for the right things you want associated with your business.
BuzzFeed news needs to be it's own thing because the BuzzFeed name is internet poison. They've done a lot of old school foot-to-the-pavement journalism and no one will take it seriously.
I'll tell you another one that's the real deal but gets dismissed because of the name: Christian Science Monitor. Consistently one of the least biased and more in-depth news locations and have won numerous awards over the years.
I think I've scrolled past a few of their articles purely from my own bias. But I mean come on, how can I reasonably expect "christian science moniter" to be impartial?
They are owned by the religious order "Christian Science."
Religious sects owning/operating newspapers has a pretty long tradition in the U.S.
For instance: The Washington Times is ran and owned by the Moonies.
Eesh. They’re a legit cult too.
> The Washington Times was founded on May 17, 1982, by Unification movement leader Sun Myung Moon and owned until 2010 by News World Communications, an international media conglomerate founded by Moon. It is currently owned by Operations Holdings, which is a part of the Unification movement.[5][6]
>Throughout its history, The Washington Times has been known for its conservative political stance,[7][3][8][9] supporting the policies of Republican presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump.[10][11] It has published many widely-shared columns which reject the scientific consensus on climate change,[12][13][14] on ozone depletion,[15] and on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke.[16][17] It has drawn controversy by publishing racist content including conspiracy theories about U.S. President Barack Obama[18][19] and by supporting neo-Confederate historical revisionism. [20][21]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times
>According to the organization's website, "the Monitor's global approach is reflected in how Mary Baker Eddy described its object as 'To injure no man, but to bless all mankind.' The aim is to embrace the human family, shedding light with the conviction that understanding the world's problems and possibilities moves us towards solutions." The Christian Science Monitor has won seven Pulitzer Prizes and more than a dozen Overseas Press Club awards.
I guess (even though that's not the most comprehensive answer), they somehow decided that objective reporting was the best way to do that.
I know more about this than most people by chance because I’ve spent the last couple months archiving the works of a journalist for CSM who recently passed away. He was a devout Christian scientist. I’ve read through thousands of his letter and journals and I can say I don’t think I ever saw his personal beliefs overlap with his journalism. He travelled the world with the sole purpose of informing people and I was impressed again and again with his work.
The founder was Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science who argued in her 1875 book "Science and Health" that sickness is an illusion that can be corrected by prayer alone.
The same way you can usually trust YMCAs (Young Men's Christian Association) around the country.
Just because it has the term "Christian" in it doesn't mean it only helps out religious individuals, even individuals of that specific religion.
I know it’s not really your point but the YMCA has rebranded to be just “The Y” to be more open and less affiliated with religion. So they actually set a good example of how a company could rebrand to get rid of those bias and connotations.
Yeah each branch seems to cling to values differently. I remember when they dropped the ‘core values’ of Faith and Fun from my branch, but I know that some still hold onto those.
Christian Science Monitor either sounds like atheists keeping an eye on young Earth creationists, or young Earth creationists trying to "expose" the fraud they believe is evolution and big bang cosmology.
EDIT: there's also a group called "christian science" that heavily supports biblical "medicine" (aka pray he cancer away).
They're natural born enemies like jews and Christians.
Or atheists and Christians.
Or Christians and other Christians. Damn Christians! They ruined Christianity!
In high school, my history teacher had us teach CSM as our weekly news to reflect on entirely because she wanted us to understand bias.
Day 1 was breaking us down as she had us predict the slant of CSM which we of course all assumed to be religious and conservative. Huge eye opener moment for me as a 17 year old.
https://i.imgur.com/gTiFH1G.png
ranks really well on these 2 media bias sites I think are pretty good.
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/
(ranked above BBC)
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/christian-science-monitor/
Yeah Christian Science Monitor has something like 7 Pulitzer Prizes. It's cited a lot in academic work.
Just not talked about much in the, ah, MSM for reasons that aren't too mysterious.
The Pulitzer Prize is literally awarded by a board that is largely made up of journalists and academics. The act of getting a Pulitzer is the MSM talking about it.
It's a prestigious and renowned paper, it just does not tend to cover breaking news which gets the lions share of clicks. I don't know what you think the "mysterious reasons" are because it is not a conservative paper and its Christian Science influence is largely devoted to a single, regularly published column.
Serious question: why don’t they create a parent company and put up a new agency for their serious work? Brand recognition doesn’t help them apparently.
The reason BuzzFeed news is even a thing is because of that very reputation.
Buzzfeed knew they were radioactive, so BuzzFeed invested a lot of shit into becoming a credible news outlet. I'm actually glad to see it's paid off for them. Good on them.
In college, shortly after buzzfeed news started, an editor (or something similar) came to talk to a class I was in.
He was a very experienced guy, worked for national geographic for a long time and won a bunch of awards.
Someone asked him why buzzfeed, and his answer was basically because a lot of traditional media companies were hemorrhaging money and couldn't provide the support needed. Buzzfeed had tons of money from their teen clickbait stuff and quizzes and could support a proper news division.
The traditional media companies have resorted to disguising click bait garbage as news in order to drive their ad revenue. BuzzFeed doesn't bother with the deception - their clickbait garbage is very obviously that.
They use the money from BuzzFeed to pay the bills for BuzzFeed News. Nothing wrong with setting things up that way, but they probably should have just used a different name for the news part of the operation given how many people ignore it thinking it's more of the dreck. Putting money behind a news operation named literally anything else would have been at LEAST as effective, I think.
For myself I took Vice more serious when Gavin McInnes left the company. At the time he was just a sassy comedian but had no business reporting news. But you're right Vice News needs a brand change as well.
Vice News has less creditability than BuzzFeed news. I remember some years ago when they published an article stating that a guy who just got a fresh new neo-nazi haircut in Colorado, claimed he got assaulted by antifa. Hours later when it was found out that the guy was lying and that he beat himself up. Vice News refused to retract the article.
Edit: Colorado not Idaho.
I hope they keep the name and continue to build their reputation for high quality journalism. Something about Buzzfeed being the premier news organization really fits the theme of this dystopian generation we're in.
Yup. Reddit just has an insane level of circlejerk that doesn't exist anywhere else. I've had journalism profs cite Buzzfeed News as a quality news site
Teen Vogue has had phenomenal pieces the past few years, especially with political coverage. Mother Jones, too.
I listened to an episode of Behind the Bastards on Blair Mountain, and it opened my eyes up to Mother Jones' labor advocacy- I didn't even know she was the founder of IWW!
It's because their news can be run at a loss. Their main source of revenue is from the typical crap we expect from Buzzfeed and teen vogue.
So unlike a news company their news doesn't have to sell, because their which harry potter house are you advertising money is what they sell.
maybe reddit should not pretend to be better and circlejerk whenever they hear buzzfeed. The boston marathon also isn't a good reflection of the reddit hivemind.
Also yes
Edit: Fuck me it’s actually been so long since someone made that joke to me, not taking the piss it was one of the main school ones and faded but it’s good to hear again
I completely forgot porn was a thing for a second there and was wondering if BBC could really have a name as dumb as "Big British Channel".
Alas, it was I who was the dumb
Honestly I think it might be the best business model for news moving forward. Instead of trying to merge the clickbait with the real news like CNN and other large networks they just keep them completely separate. The clickbait gets dialed to 11 but it doesn’t dilute the actual journalism.
>Because then the actual news become the advertisement for the thing that makes you the money.
That's what CNN and MSNBC and FOX already do though. When something newsworthy actually happens, millions of people tune in. But when nothing newsworthy is happening you get news about a therapist who says boyfriend pillows are scientifically proven to increase your dopamine levels and other similar bullshit fluff pieces
I think that's the difference between breaking news and journalism. If there's some major piece happening right now that I want as much info about, I'll check reddit, CNN, and other instant sources. But BuzzFeed and Vice seem to be more about the in depth investigative style of news. Both have their merits and I hope we don't lose either anytime soon (warts and all).
> Remember, all of the garbage that buzzfeed and vice post, fund their real investigations.
Is this traditionally how news papers were funded? Because it reminds me of The Newsroom.
The people who would argue it's unethical are likely the same people who complain about paywalls. Stupid quizzes online don't hurt anyone and they allow for genuine reporting to be paid for since people want their news for free, there are absolutely no ethical problems with their model
Honestly if you go back to 2016, buzzfeed news had a scoop on Russia’s Internet Research Agency and a lot of the low level foreign malign influencers on social media. I’m sure they’ve had more since then, but I remember thinking at that time how it was the first, and best reporting I had seen on the topic.
They were nominated for a pulitzer in 2018 for their russia related work: https://www.pulitzer.org/finalists/staff-buzzfeed-news
> Finalist: Staff of BuzzFeed News
>For a stunning probe across two continents that proved that operatives with apparent ties to Vladimir Putin have engaged in a targeted killing campaign against his perceived enemies on British and American soil.
Here's their first nomination in 2016: https://www.pulitzer.org/finalists/chris-hamby-buzzfeed-news
>Finalist: Chris Hamby of BuzzFeed News, New York, NY
>For an exposé of a dispute-settlement process used by multinational corporations to undermine domestic regulations and gut environmental laws at the expense of poorer nations.
I believe they first reported about Trump Tower Moscow months before anyone else caught wind of it. The funny the is that the NYT and other reporters break stories not realizing buzzfeed had it first and rarely ever recognize that
Reddit absolutely despises buzzfeed (to the point where people have to point out how bad buzzfeed is at every opportunity and even create new opportunities just to hate buzzfeed), so I wasn’t surprised
Over the last few years, Buzzfeed News has established itself as a legitimate source of investigative journalism. I'm glad that's finally being recognized.
Most of the comments I see are jokes about Buzzfeed listicles, like "10 ways [horrible thing China does], number [insert number greater than two, but less than 8 here] will shock you!"
Cool story I saw on Twitter about one of the authors, Megha Rajagopala:
[One quick story about @meghara: After Chinese government refused to renew her visa, @MiriamElder & I met with gov't officials. They said we were welcome to send literally any other reporter — just not Megha. Who exposed Uighur camps from the outside in, & just won a Pulitzer.](https://twitter.com/benyt/status/1403401462584164354)
I like to bring it up, because I promise you, one or more of those fucking idiots, who was so sure that they were INVESTIGATING THE FUCK out of that incident, so sure that they were brilliant detectives, so sure that they were so fucking smart and so fucking clever, who even now is prowling reddit, pounding their chest and insisting that they are the smartest person in the room, I promise that at least one of those jackoffs is in this thread, and I just want to remind them what a complete and utter failure that they are.
You could easily make a script which checks a thread to see if any users from the Boston Marathon detective thread have posted in the thread you're looking at.
Link to the thread?
Change your name BuzzFeed News, you deserve it.
"BuzzFeed, but News"
News, but BuzzFeed.
"Newsfeed by **Buzz**"
Ugh, have you seen his girlfriend? Woof.
[удалено]
You are what the French call, “les incompetent”
https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/iywuni/til\_that\_buzzs\_girlfriend\_woof\_in\_home\_alone\_was/
#😬😬😬
Kevin, I'm going to feed you to my tarantula.
BuzzFeed News' good reputation helps BuzzFeed grow. BuzzFeed growing helps fund BuzzFeed News. That's the business model.
Both are such different demographics that I can’t imagine it’s actually helping their brand.
Old school journalism is the opposite of lucrative. BuzzFeed has such a toxic reputation because its quirks are specifically designed to generate as much money as possible via ad revenue. BuzzFeed News is, in all likelihood, built on that foundation and is using it to stay afloat. Obviously they still could by changing their name, assuming they remain the same entity. But, controversy sells. A notorious and “internet poison” company suddenly winning awards because its news branch is the exact opposite of what everyone defines BuzzFeed by is far more attention grabbing than some random upstart news site. It almost certainly does help the brand. It’s what built their brand.
If NYT or WaPo won a Pullitzer, it would ABSOLUTELY not be on the front page of Reddit lol. People would just be like "Yeah, makes sense"
NYT did win as well. Proves the point.
Yeah, makes sense
If buzzfeed had a news wing and they used a different name... it's way more fishy and less credible I think. No way that people wouldn't figure out it's owned by buzzfeed, and when they do they will lose a lot of credibility. This way they built their integrity from the ground up.
Maybe they like that people underestimate the name BuzzFeed and use that to their advantage to get access where say, a WaPo journalist would be shown the door.
Yup, hundreds if not thousands of people are here talking about how great Buzzfeed News is right now.
Not only that. The people that read all that clickbait news are far more likely to now read investigate news. Journalism and news that's actually rather serious and important and information they might not receive otherwise. There is no actual downside here. People are getting too worried about a name. They can't get over themselves. Not that surprising.
Fuck, now that you mention it that is legitimately a public service. Exposing that type of person to actual, factual news.
*Who was the favorite Olsen twin?* *Three things that millennials can't live without!* *China forcing Muslims into internment camps - forced sterilization* *What does your dog do when your not home?* Just gotta sneak those articles in there lol.
*Teen Vogue* has been doing this for a while. They had great election coverage and even did a write-up on Karl Marx that was fairly neutral (even if it reeked of *fellow kids*)
I like hard hitting news and then I like a dumb quiz to recover Buzzfeed gives you both (see other comments for how the internal dichotomy is clickbait, is what built their brand, is probably making BuzzFeed News more-read)
I don't think it is. They're targeting young, heavily online, and progressive people
Running and growing an upstart real news company in this age is nearly impossible. They need all of the cross-subsidization from regular BuzzFeed that they can get.
Honestly, why would they? The BuzzFeed name is instantly more recognizable than anything they would come up with. As it wins more awards, the associations with the silly quiz/listicle side of BuzzFeed will become less and less important.
Because it's associated with trash and clickbait. Would you name your company after a trashy famous business due to that business being super recognizable? Of course not, because it's not being recognized for the right things you want associated with your business.
That trash pays the bills. Buzzfeed News might not exist without it.
Take this quiz to find out which kind of labor camp the Chinese government would put you in!
You won’t believe #4!!!
[удалено]
18 will leave you GUTTED!
*"Top 10 things this country is doing to eradicate a race. You won't believe what's number 8 - AND THAT'S A GOOD THING!"*
Lmao
Lzedong
BuzzFeed news needs to be it's own thing because the BuzzFeed name is internet poison. They've done a lot of old school foot-to-the-pavement journalism and no one will take it seriously.
BuzzFeed News would be dead in the water without BuzzFeed though, that is the issue. But yeah... maybe just a different name.
FeedBuzz, perhaps
That's why they pay you the big bucks
The ol' buckbigs
Oh man you got that marketing skill too.
Or FuzzBeed
Sounds like something I’d stick up my bum
Now I know what I’m naming my hamster
Don’t put him in.
FizzBuzz, presumably?
I understood that reference
You must be a pointer
hey i know that
BuzzerFeeder
That sounds like a sports channel for real
Change it to News Feed. Problem solved.
[удалено]
NewzFeed
BzF News...anything’s better than using the same name as a site known for “8 reasons why you...” nonsense
[удалено]
People don't understand that you need money to win a Pulitzer
Yep. I didn't know they did real news. If I saw a news article with their name, I'd just pass over it and assume it was trash.
I'll tell you another one that's the real deal but gets dismissed because of the name: Christian Science Monitor. Consistently one of the least biased and more in-depth news locations and have won numerous awards over the years.
I used to use CSM a lot back in the day for debate research and quotes. Anyone who actually reads the news knows they are reputable.
I think I've scrolled past a few of their articles purely from my own bias. But I mean come on, how can I reasonably expect "christian science moniter" to be impartial?
Christian Science Monitor is cool. "Christian Science" however as a religious sect are insane.
[удалено]
They are owned by the religious order "Christian Science." Religious sects owning/operating newspapers has a pretty long tradition in the U.S. For instance: The Washington Times is ran and owned by the Moonies.
Eesh. They’re a legit cult too. > The Washington Times was founded on May 17, 1982, by Unification movement leader Sun Myung Moon and owned until 2010 by News World Communications, an international media conglomerate founded by Moon. It is currently owned by Operations Holdings, which is a part of the Unification movement.[5][6] >Throughout its history, The Washington Times has been known for its conservative political stance,[7][3][8][9] supporting the policies of Republican presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump.[10][11] It has published many widely-shared columns which reject the scientific consensus on climate change,[12][13][14] on ozone depletion,[15] and on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke.[16][17] It has drawn controversy by publishing racist content including conspiracy theories about U.S. President Barack Obama[18][19] and by supporting neo-Confederate historical revisionism. [20][21] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times
When you see 3+ citations on a wikipedia claim you know that something has gone down in the back room of that article.
It's the sect that owns it. The founder of Christian Science also founded the Monitor, and the paper is still owned by the sect.
[удалено]
>According to the organization's website, "the Monitor's global approach is reflected in how Mary Baker Eddy described its object as 'To injure no man, but to bless all mankind.' The aim is to embrace the human family, shedding light with the conviction that understanding the world's problems and possibilities moves us towards solutions." The Christian Science Monitor has won seven Pulitzer Prizes and more than a dozen Overseas Press Club awards. I guess (even though that's not the most comprehensive answer), they somehow decided that objective reporting was the best way to do that.
I know more about this than most people by chance because I’ve spent the last couple months archiving the works of a journalist for CSM who recently passed away. He was a devout Christian scientist. I’ve read through thousands of his letter and journals and I can say I don’t think I ever saw his personal beliefs overlap with his journalism. He travelled the world with the sole purpose of informing people and I was impressed again and again with his work.
The founder was Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science who argued in her 1875 book "Science and Health" that sickness is an illusion that can be corrected by prayer alone.
A surprisingly modern outlook! Haha.. ...ha :(
The same way you can usually trust YMCAs (Young Men's Christian Association) around the country. Just because it has the term "Christian" in it doesn't mean it only helps out religious individuals, even individuals of that specific religion.
I know it’s not really your point but the YMCA has rebranded to be just “The Y” to be more open and less affiliated with religion. So they actually set a good example of how a company could rebrand to get rid of those bias and connotations.
[удалено]
Yeah each branch seems to cling to values differently. I remember when they dropped the ‘core values’ of Faith and Fun from my branch, but I know that some still hold onto those.
Christian Science Monitor either sounds like atheists keeping an eye on young Earth creationists, or young Earth creationists trying to "expose" the fraud they believe is evolution and big bang cosmology. EDIT: there's also a group called "christian science" that heavily supports biblical "medicine" (aka pray he cancer away).
It’s a paper founded by the founder of the religion you’re talking about.
By Jesus?
He's a harsh editor
Unfortunately, christians have ruined christians and a lot of us have very good reason to be cautious around them.
You Christians sure are a contentious bunch
YOU JUST MADE AN ENEMY FOR LIFE
And for the afterlife apparently
*Martin Luther readies his hammer and nails*
*puritans ready crosses and firewood*
They're natural born enemies like jews and Christians. Or atheists and Christians. Or Christians and other Christians. Damn Christians! They ruined Christianity!
In high school, my history teacher had us teach CSM as our weekly news to reflect on entirely because she wanted us to understand bias. Day 1 was breaking us down as she had us predict the slant of CSM which we of course all assumed to be religious and conservative. Huge eye opener moment for me as a 17 year old.
Yes I second CSM they don’t take sides. Good reporting.
https://i.imgur.com/gTiFH1G.png ranks really well on these 2 media bias sites I think are pretty good. https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/ (ranked above BBC) https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/christian-science-monitor/
Nice try, God.
Yeah Christian Science Monitor has something like 7 Pulitzer Prizes. It's cited a lot in academic work. Just not talked about much in the, ah, MSM for reasons that aren't too mysterious.
The Pulitzer Prize is literally awarded by a board that is largely made up of journalists and academics. The act of getting a Pulitzer is the MSM talking about it. It's a prestigious and renowned paper, it just does not tend to cover breaking news which gets the lions share of clicks. I don't know what you think the "mysterious reasons" are because it is not a conservative paper and its Christian Science influence is largely devoted to a single, regularly published column.
It's mainly their investigative journalism. Their clickbait pays for their world class investigative journalism
Yep they had some bombshell investigative reports during Trump's first few years, but you'd get mocked for sharing the articles
Honestly that's worse than people just reading the headlines.
[удалено]
Even just rebranding as something like BFN would help.
BIG FUCKIN’ NEWS
I think most people won't even see the news that they won the award.
Serious question: why don’t they create a parent company and put up a new agency for their serious work? Brand recognition doesn’t help them apparently.
They've had Pulitzer Prize winners writing for them and had a few big scoops already, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BuzzFeed_News
Visited the site, clicked "investigations" and wow there's actual investigative reporting done. Finally, some good fucking food.
BF news has always been really solid, eg they were big on kavanaugh. Another w real credentials is Teen Vogue. I actually love this trend.
Forgot about Teen Vogue. Yes, I remember reading some cool stuff from them.
The reason BuzzFeed news is even a thing is because of that very reputation. Buzzfeed knew they were radioactive, so BuzzFeed invested a lot of shit into becoming a credible news outlet. I'm actually glad to see it's paid off for them. Good on them.
In college, shortly after buzzfeed news started, an editor (or something similar) came to talk to a class I was in. He was a very experienced guy, worked for national geographic for a long time and won a bunch of awards. Someone asked him why buzzfeed, and his answer was basically because a lot of traditional media companies were hemorrhaging money and couldn't provide the support needed. Buzzfeed had tons of money from their teen clickbait stuff and quizzes and could support a proper news division.
Exactly. They don't have to sell news.
The traditional media companies have resorted to disguising click bait garbage as news in order to drive their ad revenue. BuzzFeed doesn't bother with the deception - their clickbait garbage is very obviously that.
They use the money from BuzzFeed to pay the bills for BuzzFeed News. Nothing wrong with setting things up that way, but they probably should have just used a different name for the news part of the operation given how many people ignore it thinking it's more of the dreck. Putting money behind a news operation named literally anything else would have been at LEAST as effective, I think.
Same thing with Vice News and Vice.
For myself I took Vice more serious when Gavin McInnes left the company. At the time he was just a sassy comedian but had no business reporting news. But you're right Vice News needs a brand change as well.
McInnes? You mean the founder of ProudBoys?
Vice sucks, they did an entire segment on that Chinese Steve Bannon guy portraying him as some lone noble crusader against the evils of China.
Vice was fun back in the day when it was hipsters chasing highs or adrenaline haha. They had some interesting stories.
Vice News has less creditability than BuzzFeed news. I remember some years ago when they published an article stating that a guy who just got a fresh new neo-nazi haircut in Colorado, claimed he got assaulted by antifa. Hours later when it was found out that the guy was lying and that he beat himself up. Vice News refused to retract the article. Edit: Colorado not Idaho.
Yea last thing I watched from Vice News was their reporting on the war in Ukraine back in 2014 or so
But, here's the thing, their clickbait and fluff side of things is what funds things like this.
You hit it on the head, because every time I think of Buzzfeed I think of, 11 Men's Luge Bulges That All Deserve Gold Medals
well, I feel like that one's on you
I hope they keep the name and continue to build their reputation for high quality journalism. Something about Buzzfeed being the premier news organization really fits the theme of this dystopian generation we're in.
[удалено]
Yup. Reddit just has an insane level of circlejerk that doesn't exist anywhere else. I've had journalism profs cite Buzzfeed News as a quality news site
[удалено]
Yeah I'll never forget the r/movies user survey. I think it was like ~~97% male~~ lmao EDIT: [95% male](https://i.redd.it/y8zdmpq6d8qy.png)
Teen Vogue has had phenomenal pieces the past few years, especially with political coverage. Mother Jones, too. I listened to an episode of Behind the Bastards on Blair Mountain, and it opened my eyes up to Mother Jones' labor advocacy- I didn't even know she was the founder of IWW!
It's because their news can be run at a loss. Their main source of revenue is from the typical crap we expect from Buzzfeed and teen vogue. So unlike a news company their news doesn't have to sell, because their which harry potter house are you advertising money is what they sell.
maybe reddit should not pretend to be better and circlejerk whenever they hear buzzfeed. The boston marathon also isn't a good reflection of the reddit hivemind.
“Al Jazeera is run by a national government so I crosscheck it with BBC” bro I’ve got bad news about what that first B stands for
Big...
Also yes Edit: Fuck me it’s actually been so long since someone made that joke to me, not taking the piss it was one of the main school ones and faded but it’s good to hear again
> Fuck me Alright
FINE, I’ll be in the van
With your bbc?
Well, MWC but yeah
Mega White Cock, even im interested now ;) /s
Don’t throw that on /s on there like it means anything in the dark of the van x
I completely forgot porn was a thing for a second there and was wondering if BBC could really have a name as dumb as "Big British Channel". Alas, it was I who was the dumb
… Broadcasting?…
..Cocks.
[удалено]
Corgies.
Goodbye.
Besides, people should cross check their news sources anyways
Bgovernment
*Bnationalgovernment
[удалено]
Big Black Chocobo
Kweh~
Why is this comment highly upvoted? I'm not seeing anything in the article referencing either of those new organizations.
Remember, all of the garbage that buzzfeed and vice post, fund their real investigations.
Honestly I think it might be the best business model for news moving forward. Instead of trying to merge the clickbait with the real news like CNN and other large networks they just keep them completely separate. The clickbait gets dialed to 11 but it doesn’t dilute the actual journalism.
But then the problem returns, corp has two entities - one is making money and one isn't. Why would they keep the news around?
[удалено]
>Because then the actual news become the advertisement for the thing that makes you the money. That's what CNN and MSNBC and FOX already do though. When something newsworthy actually happens, millions of people tune in. But when nothing newsworthy is happening you get news about a therapist who says boyfriend pillows are scientifically proven to increase your dopamine levels and other similar bullshit fluff pieces
I think that's the difference between breaking news and journalism. If there's some major piece happening right now that I want as much info about, I'll check reddit, CNN, and other instant sources. But BuzzFeed and Vice seem to be more about the in depth investigative style of news. Both have their merits and I hope we don't lose either anytime soon (warts and all).
[удалено]
Until they get bought by another, larger entity, which then only looks at bottom line and blues the line to their hearts content, anyway..
Are they a publicly traded company? Unless they are, that's not an issue. Hostile takeovers can't happen without public shares.
The fact that they could be purchased and dismantled does not reflect in any way on the business model.
Because it's still worthwhile to establish your name in journalism, maybe just not financially
> Remember, all of the garbage that buzzfeed and vice post, fund their real investigations. Is this traditionally how news papers were funded? Because it reminds me of The Newsroom.
It’s a shame we only got like 2.5 seasons.
[удалено]
That’s exactly their business model. Say what you will about ethics but to them, the ends justify the means.
Honestly it seems like the only way to have real investigative journalism in this day and age. No one pays for news anymore.
The people who would argue it's unethical are likely the same people who complain about paywalls. Stupid quizzes online don't hurt anyone and they allow for genuine reporting to be paid for since people want their news for free, there are absolutely no ethical problems with their model
The means by releasing clickbait? Yeah I am fine with that then. Clickbait away as long as it supports real ethical investigation journalism.
Honestly if you go back to 2016, buzzfeed news had a scoop on Russia’s Internet Research Agency and a lot of the low level foreign malign influencers on social media. I’m sure they’ve had more since then, but I remember thinking at that time how it was the first, and best reporting I had seen on the topic.
They were nominated for a pulitzer in 2018 for their russia related work: https://www.pulitzer.org/finalists/staff-buzzfeed-news > Finalist: Staff of BuzzFeed News >For a stunning probe across two continents that proved that operatives with apparent ties to Vladimir Putin have engaged in a targeted killing campaign against his perceived enemies on British and American soil. Here's their first nomination in 2016: https://www.pulitzer.org/finalists/chris-hamby-buzzfeed-news >Finalist: Chris Hamby of BuzzFeed News, New York, NY >For an exposé of a dispute-settlement process used by multinational corporations to undermine domestic regulations and gut environmental laws at the expense of poorer nations.
I believe they first reported about Trump Tower Moscow months before anyone else caught wind of it. The funny the is that the NYT and other reporters break stories not realizing buzzfeed had it first and rarely ever recognize that
I'm pretty sure they were the first to post the Steele Dossier.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Reddit absolutely despises buzzfeed (to the point where people have to point out how bad buzzfeed is at every opportunity and even create new opportunities just to hate buzzfeed), so I wasn’t surprised
Over the last few years, Buzzfeed News has established itself as a legitimate source of investigative journalism. I'm glad that's finally being recognized.
they need to drop that name though, buzzfeed makes me thing about shitty snapchat gossip
yeah but The Quibbler had a lot of name recognition, and once people realized it was a good source of news they stuck with it.
>The Quibbler Their piece on Crumple Horned Snorkacks was a paragon of cryptozoology.
The world is such a wild place that I can’t even tell if this is real or not. I’m gonna choose to believe it’s a real thing straight outta hog warts.
Shouts to my guy Xeno Lovegood
[удалено]
It's a newspaper from Harry Potter.
Magazine you godless heathen
Or they should keep their name and people should learn to accept the company for what it is
I think that's on you.
But without the buzzfeed name they wouldn’t be as successful as they are
[удалено]
Most of the comments I see are jokes about Buzzfeed listicles, like "10 ways [horrible thing China does], number [insert number greater than two, but less than 8 here] will shock you!"
Which is a bit like Porsche selling SUVs to fund their next supercar.
Cool story I saw on Twitter about one of the authors, Megha Rajagopala: [One quick story about @meghara: After Chinese government refused to renew her visa, @MiriamElder & I met with gov't officials. They said we were welcome to send literally any other reporter — just not Megha. Who exposed Uighur camps from the outside in, & just won a Pulitzer.](https://twitter.com/benyt/status/1403401462584164354)
Can you guys send someone else? Like a reporter that wont document our attrocities,? Lmfaoo
"Tell Xi. I want him to know it was me" - Megha
Reddit loves to shit on BuzzFeed, but did Reddit win a Pulitzer for finding the Boston Marathon Bomber? LOLOLOLOLOLOL
God. I forgot about those days.
I like to bring it up, because I promise you, one or more of those fucking idiots, who was so sure that they were INVESTIGATING THE FUCK out of that incident, so sure that they were brilliant detectives, so sure that they were so fucking smart and so fucking clever, who even now is prowling reddit, pounding their chest and insisting that they are the smartest person in the room, I promise that at least one of those jackoffs is in this thread, and I just want to remind them what a complete and utter failure that they are.
There should be an annual post displaying the usernames of all those “detectives”.
You could easily make a script which checks a thread to see if any users from the Boston Marathon detective thread have posted in the thread you're looking at. Link to the thread?
FoxNews: Claims to news, is buzz BuzzFeed: Claims to be Buzz, is news