
BuzzFeed denies deleting critical articles to appease advertisers - walterbell
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/11/buzzfeed-denies-deleting-critical-articles-to-appease-advertisers
======
danso
I'm a frequent defender of BuzzFeed as a legit news source...they've hired
several colleagues and friends of mine and there are multiple Pulitzer winners
among their large data/investigations team.

But this latest incident is pretty disturbing...I would've figured that
BuzzFeed's clout (and funding) was so high that annoying a couple of
advertisers with articles was a cost of doing business that could easily be
swallowed, rather than compromise their integrity.

But as the famous Watergate saying goes, it's not the crime, it's the coverup.
Not only were the deletions done secretly, but when exposed, the excuses were
so transparently lame. The post critical of Dove was deleted because it was a
"hot take", and deleting it was necessary to get the point across to the
writers? That's an editorial- _style_ kerfluffle, one that could be explained
through a memo, not _retracting the article_. Keep in mind that a retraction
is traditionally done for very serious screwups, like the time Rolling Stone
accused UVA of covering up a gang-rape but didn't interview anybody involved.
Making a low-quality post should not be grounds for deletion.

And this became a lot worse when the Hasbro/Monopoly article was
discovered...when the Dove post was deleted, BuzzFeed's editor said that was
the first and only time such a deletion had been done...the Monopoly post was
deleted a month or so ago. And the lame reason for that deletion was that the
post was too opinionated, and that it too was a one-time-action.

Kind of strange that of the thousands of posts BuzzFeed makes in a single
week, the only two that of such egregious quality that they were completely
deleted (and done so in such a way as to be removed from the Internet Archive
and Google Cache) had to do with two prominent advertisers.

I know publishing is a business, and all journalism institutions make various
compromises/cutbacks for bottom-line reasons. But the cover-up here is more
egregious than most.

~~~
foobarqux
The only difference with old-media is that there they kill the story before it
is ever published.

~~~
siegecraft
I'm sure old-media would love to be able to kill a story after it's published,
they just didn't have the tech.

~~~
anon1385
They can and do still remove stories from their websites:
[https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-
oborne/why-i-...](https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-
have-resigned-from-telegraph)

>I researched the newspaper’s coverage of HSBC. I learnt that Harry Wilson,
the admirable banking correspondent of the Telegraph, had published an online
story about HSBC based on a report from a Hong Kong analyst who had claimed
there was a ‘black hole’ in the HSBC accounts. This story was swiftly removed
from the Telegraph website, even though there were no legal problems. When I
asked HSBC whether the bank had complained about Wilson's article, or played
any role in the decision to remove it, the bank declined to comment. Mr
Wilson’s contemporaneous tweets referring to the story can be found here. The
story itself, however, is no longer available on the website, as anybody
trying to follow through the link can discover. Mr Wilson rather bravely
raised this issue publicly at the ‘town hall meeting’ when Jason Seiken
introduced himself to staff. He has since left the paper.

Most reputable papers wouldn't do this with a new piece though. Opinion pieces
seem to get removed at times, mainly when there is a backlash and the paper
feels that a column crossed the line from controversial clickbait into
something that's drawing too much heat (e.g.
[http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/14/observer-editor-john-
mu...](http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/14/observer-editor-john-mulholland-
withdraws-julie-burchill-column-accused-of-transphobia/) ).

------
plongeur
Okay, so I just had a look at BuzzFeed - let's see what we got there:

\- The Battle for Brazil

\- 17 Iced Teas That Will Quench Your Thirst This Spring

\- 10 Things That Look Exactly Like Kylie Jenner’s New Hair

\- 12 Things You Only Let Your Bff Do

\- FYI The Twins From “The Suite Life Of Zack And Cody” Are Like Really Hot

\- Can You Guess The Season Of “Law & Order: SVU” From A Screencap Of Olivia
Benson?

\- ...

Now, worrying about the integrity of BuzzFeed strikes me as slightly
hypocritical - I mean, it's yellow pages 2.0 at the end of the day - isn't it?

~~~
pyrophane
BuzzFeed may be 90% silly lists, but the fact that they want to be taken
seriously as a source for real news and journalism means that it is important
to hold them accountable to some basic standards of ethical behavior, like not
quietly purging content at the behest of their advertisers and then lying
about it.

~~~
simplexion
I prefer Clickhole. It has far more journalistic integrity.

------
ianstallings
Since when is BuzzFeed is a _news_ site? Maybe I should list "10 reasons out
why BuzzFeed isn't a news site" to back up my case.

~~~
tobylane
Perhaps since they have a partial seat in the White House press room. Between
BBC/Boston Globe, with Scripps, next to Guardian/FT. If you asked me to name
some varying trustworthy news sources there's three top ones there.

~~~
joshuapants
A more cynical interpretation might be that the White House wants to get in
cozy with the media that younger people consume, regardless of its merits as
an actual news source. I think Buzzfeed is far better than what it was, but I
don't think it merits comparison to Real News Outlets.

~~~
sukilot
It is not cynical at all. The white house has a duty to fill the press room
with diverse range of press that reaches as much of america as possible.
"Serious" isn't really the criteria.

And anyway, buzz feed's news articles are as serious other publishers. The
presence of other silly stories isn't any worse than the Boston Globe having a
comics page.

------
k1m
The Guardian, like other news sources relying on big advertising deals, is not
that different when it comes to pleasing advertisers. See
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/media/11425580/Guardian-
chan...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/media/11425580/Guardian-changed-Iraq-
article-to-avoid-offending-Apple.html) and
[http://medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-
archive/2015/788...](http://medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-
archive/2015/788-a-conspiracy-of-silence-hsbc-the-guardian-and-the-defrauded-
british-public.html)

~~~
exstudent2
Regardless of anyone's opinion of GamerGate, they have uncovered quite a bit
of unethical behavior on the Guardian's behalf. It's sad too because I really
respected their Snowden coverage (obviously!).

[http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/search?q=guardian&res...](http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/search?q=guardian&restrict_sr=on)

~~~
room271
Really? I'm no expert on this, but it seems like the Guardian game journalists
have been pretty transparent they don't like the GamerGate movement.

------
imroot
Just like match.com/IACI did when they started charging for okcupid features
-- this article: [http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2010/04/07/why-you-
should-...](http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2010/04/07/why-you-should-never-
pay-for-online-dating/)

suddenly disappeared.

If you don't like what's being said, change the conversation, I guess.

------
brosefstalin
buzzfeed is complete and utter trash and in no way a legitimate news
organization.

However, with White House now using buzzfeed as a medium link up with the
younger generation, it's become a source of "information" (see below) to see
what agenda Obama is peddling to the kids today.

[http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-
way/2015/02/12/385867076/wat...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-
way/2015/02/12/385867076/watch-president-hawks-obamacare-in-buzzfeed-video)

