Editor of Buzzfeed said this about the publishing of the possibly fake Trump/Russia dossier.

And publishing it reflects how we see Buzzfeed as a news source in 2017.

Google wrote:

“People of good will may disagree with our choice,” he wrote. “But publishing this dossier reflects how we see the job of reporters in 2017.”

The story is weird. Yesterday all the mainstream media starts reporting that Trump was briefed that there are unsubstantiated reports the Russians may have information on him.

No one had a problem with reporting that because it was a fact Trump was briefed on it. However, it clearly shows a leak and I think with the intention to make President elect Trump look bad.

Now this is where it gets interesting. All the media had seen these reports but not published them because they weren't substantiated. Makes sense.

However, once the president is briefed on them I think that gives them more credibility and then buzzfeed took this one step further and published the unsubstantiated reports that presumable were what Trump was briefed on.

I too initially thought it was shoddy journalism, but upon reflection if this is the report on what Trump was briefed upon then didn't the reports cross into a new realm?

It was almost like someone wanted this stuff out there or it was inevitable it was going to get out there. Whisper campaigns about this stuff had been out for months.

Slate sums it up well, "Yet the dossier did come out eventually, and it’s interesting to reflect on how and why it happened—and whether it was inevitable. It happened via a series of steps by various actors, each of whom relied on the actions of those before them to justify their own decisions. BuzzFeed presumably published it in part because CNN was reporting on it. CNN was reporting on it because intelligence officials had briefed Trump on it. Intelligence officials briefed Trump on it because senior congressional leaders were passing it around. Senior congressional leaders may have been passing it around in part because Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid alluded to it in a letter blasting FBI Director James Comey for publicizing information harmful to Hillary Clinton but not publicizing the dirt on Trump. Each act lowered the bar for those who followed to act on information that they knew might or might not be true."

CIA is now telling NBC anonymously they did not brief Trump on it.

And has changed characterization from unverified report to unvetted misinformation.

My prediction:

BuzzFeed will be destroyed by Court or Self-immolation.

Like Gwaker and Hulk Hogan

"Gawker is shutting down today, Monday 22nd August 2016"

Men_be_men wrote:

My prediction:

BuzzFeed will be destroyed by Court or Self-immolation.

Like Gwaker and Hulk Hogan

"Gawker is shutting down today, Monday 22nd August 2016"

Why would Buzzfeed be destroyed?

CNN is the one who printed anonymous leaks from US intelligengence that turned out not to be true.

Buzzfeed publishing the source documents is likely what is causing it all to unravel so quickly.

It's the difference between on agency saying "There is a tape of hulk hogan having sex" and another agency posting an unedited version of the tape. This is why Gawker got shut down.

The Russia/Trump doc is real:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/no-that-trumprussia-dossier-isnt-an-elaborate-4chan-hoax/

"Intelligence officials briefed Trump on it because senior congressional leaders were passing it around."

I do not believe that top US intelligence officials would present this stuff directly to the president elect just because it was being passed around in the Congress. The dossier has been described as raw intelligence data from a former British intelligence official who US officials know to be a credible source. US officials would not put the information before the president elect without having vetted the information sufficiently to be able to go beyond just the raw data and reputation of the source as the basis for presenting the information. It is just not how intelligence officials do things. In fact, the botched intelligence on the Iraq war was largely due to "stove piping" by Bush administration officials where they would go around the vetting process to directly pluck intelligence raw data that fit their needs. It was a "never again" moment for the intelligence agencies.

In terms of regular journalistic practices, Buzzfeed should have never published the dossier. But Trump is not playing by the established rules when it comes to his connections with Russia. He has not disclosed his tax returns. We do not know whether he is in deep to a Russian creditor as has been alleged. He has not come forward with a clear plan to divest his business interests other than to hand the reigns to his children who are also going to directly and indirectly be participating in his government. So, if the president elect refuses to be transparent and take the necessary steps to make it clear that he has no conflicts with business dealings with Russia, maybe it is necessary to put out unverified information into the public domain to try to force Trump to come clean or at least possibly shake out some sources who can shed some light on what is happening.

I know the story is changing so fast that it is hard to keep up...

The new leak is that they did not brief Trump on the dossier.

ya..... wrote:

It's the difference between on agency saying "There is a tape of hulk hogan having sex" and another agency posting an unedited version of the tape. This is why Gawker got shut down.

So Peter Thiel is going to fund another invasion of privacy lawsuit?

I think it is going to be a little bit easier to defend this one as newsworthy...

Mr. Obvious wrote:

I know the story is changing so fast that it is hard to keep up...

The new leak is that they did not brief Trump on the dossier.

I think - not sure - that you might have this wrong.

two documents:

a 35 page summary of the claims

a 2 page somewhat more primary source, from the UK intel guy

I think the Q is whether trump knew about the 2 pager. Not the 35 pager.

But I may have that wrong...

Fake news Buzzfeed and CNN get schlonged and go home devastated!

And where is a link showing that?

fake newsman identifier wrote:

Fake news Buzzfeed and CNN get schlonged and go home devastated!

Ahem, no wee little Trumpite.

Indoor? wrote:

And where is a link showing that?

Wow you are horrible.

1) Agencies have been doing this for decades

2) There is no excuse for the media doing things like this. Trump not releasing his tax records does not make it ok to publish unsubstantiated stuff about him. That is some extremely selfish behavior. Trump has a right to privacy for his taxes. He and no other candidate are not required to show them. There is no excuse for doing the wrong thing just so you can be nosy.

Got to read carefully:

Multiple officials say that the summary was included in the material prepared for the briefers, but the senior official told NBC News that the briefing was oral and no actual documents were left with the Trump team in New York. During the briefing, the president-elect was not briefed on the contents of the summary

Also note how they are characterizing the information now: unvetted disinformation:

According to the senior official, the two-page summary about the unsubstantiated material made available to the briefers was to provide context, should they need it, to draw the distinction for Trump between analyzed intelligence and unvetted "disinformation."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/trump-cites-nazi-germany-rejects-dossier-alleged-russia-dealings-n705586

It is quite a change from what they told CNN yesterday.

fake newsman identifier wrote:

Fake news Buzzfeed and CNN get schlonged and go home devastated!

The golden shower report is true.

High School Civics wrote:

Indoor? wrote:

And where is a link showing that?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/trump-cites-nazi-germany-rejects-dossier-alleged-russia-dealings-n705586

All that does is basically confirm everything that has been published. They are investigating something, at one point it was at least shortened down to be included in something that was reported to Trump and Obama, there is disagreement over whether it was reported to Trump or not. No outlet is saying this stuff is completely fact checked. That will be up to the CIA, FBI and NSA.

To say it's completely fake news is wrong.