![OS POSITIVOS](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zKKfxaIfpU8/Wv1aApfmmBI/AAAAAAAARbk/X7F-ldyPjjE3TCXHeH3HZ2xeVNDugZDCgCKgBGAs/s1600/x_header-200.png")
A semelhança entre o NYT e o WP? Prioridades.
"say hello to your new email marketing team"
CNN broke the story but did not include the most salacious details and underscored that it could not independently confirm the details about compromising personal and financial information involving Trump. But BuzzFeed decided to not leave anything to the imagination as it ran with an actual 35-page document that was the source of the two-page summary, with BuzzFeed underlining in yellow the sexiest (in some cases perverse) allegations. It's not family breakfast table fare.
in "The media’s not-so-golden moment: Publishing claims of Trump perversion" 11 jan 2017
É a segunda vez que o Buzzfeed nos surpreende pela positiva, e já no passado citámos abundantemente das suas declarações de intenções onde reflectem as diversas afinidades às conclusões das nossas teses. Novamente, e porque o Trump keeps on givin', de passagem e com outras intenções este website prova-nos certos. A não menosprezar igualmente que esse arremessar de acusações éticas encontre alvo num dos poucos nativos ao digital que consegue a proeza de se impor com sucesso nesse meio.
Da bombshell que largaram hoje/ontem: nem só a notícia em si pouco importa - a ser verdade, alguém se surpreende realmente? - como nem é sequer é uma notícia - mesmo os seus principais detratores admitem que esta já circulava entre as redações há meses. O seu verdadeiro impacto está na reação gerada por parte dessa parte da imprensa que se sentou na peça: também não é a primeira vez que os jornalistas se viram contra um dos seus por quebra protocolo, mas desta vez o timming não podia ser mais explosivo e precário aos media.
Analisemos, mas concluamos já: vários coros se levantam contra a publicação de um relatório que tem tudo para ser falso, mas, senhores: a ser verdadeiro, o que isso diz da imprensa? Por esta altura, para vosso bem, vocês torcem que o documento seja falso. A ser verdadeiro, é o vosso funeral.
A ser falso, continua a ser bastante instrutivo e como tal registemos.
O relatório foi publicado na íntegra para leitura de todos, devidamente enquadrado com a advertência necessária imediatamente a seguir ao título, não enterrado algures em nota de rodapé: "contém erros crassos e alegações que são necessárias comprovar". Sobre comparações a notícias falsas, estamos conversados.
Da legitimidade da decisão da sua publicação: este é o documento cujas suspeitas levantadas terão sido suficientemente credíveis para justificar a sua chamada de atenção junto de "altas esferas" de um certo Estado com um resumo de duas páginas, apresentado numa reunião dos seus serviços secretos com o actual e futuro presidentes do dito, no contexto de vários alertas sobre ingerência estrangeira, através da tentativa de exercer influência e condicionar comportamento do presidente eleito. Tendo sido insinuado antes por um canal de televisão global, o Buzzfeed complementa com um "e aqui disponibilizamos o relatório que está na base dessa apreciação pelos serviços secretos aos presidentes".
A legitimidade da escolha é-nos pacífica: normalmente os presidentes da América não recebem briefings sobre todas as conspirações que correm na internet - julgamos nós - e o contexto e contextualização em que tal peça é publicada é transparente, com os devidos alertas invocados, e pressupõe um público inteligente que assim o reconheça.
Passemos agora ao circo, e dê-mos a vez àqueles que sentem-se na obrigação de proteger o público de si mesmo: gatekeepers.
But the act of publishing the dossier in its entirety isn't journalism. Vetting the document and determining its veracity? That’s the work of journalists in 2017, or any other year.
in "BuzzFeed drops a Trump bombshell, irresponsibly" 10 jan 2017
Os jornalistas têm essa obrigação. Mas não a exclusividade.
Citamos do WP sem contrariar uma linha, que faz o caso pela decisão de publicar o documento enquando a tenta atacar :)
BuzzFeed’s ridiculous rationale for publishing the Trump-Russia dossier
It’s a cliche for editors: Let readers decide for themselves.To its credit, BuzzFeed notes prominently that the "allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors." In fact, that qualification comes in the sub-headline. To its discredit, the BuzzFeed story offers this motive for publishing the allegations: "Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government."
Top BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith put forth this explanation: "As we noted in our story, there is serious reason to doubt the allegations. We have been chasing specific claims in this document for weeks, and will continue to. Publishing this document was not an easy or simple call, and people of good will may disagree with our choice. But publishing this dossier reflects how we see the job of reporters in 2017."
It is unverified — meaning that it requires further investigation. BuzzFeed has started that process and pledges to continue pursuing it
in "BuzzFeed’s ridiculous rationale for publishing the Trump-Russia dossier" 10 jan 2017
Que o WP não se toque à ironia dos seus próprios escrito tem a sua piada. Eles próprios são dados a algumas gracinhas:
Americans can only "make up their own minds" if they build their own intelligence agencies, with a heavy concentration of operatives in Russia and Eastern Europe.
in "BuzzFeed’s ridiculous rationale for publishing the Trump-Russia dossier" 10 jan 2017
Americanos: uma forma mais lúcida de "make up your own minds" sem o custo absurdo de suportar concentrações massivas de operativos na Rússia ou qualquer sítio poderia ser alcançada por uma imprensa que não sonegue relatórios mas apresenta-os como são, particularmente aqueles que são objecto de reunião entre os vossos presidentes.
O verdadeiro interesse desta mais recente shitstorm é mesmo a canibalização da imprensa. Do NYT, outro mamute do jornalismo mundial, destaques nossos:
BuzzFeed’s decision, besides its immediate political ramifications for a president-elect who is to be inaugurated in 10 days, was sure to accelerate a roiling debate about the role and credibility of the traditional media in today’s frenetic, polarized information age.
The reports by CNN and Buzzfeed sent other news organizations, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, scrambling to publish their own articles, some of which included generalized descriptions of the unverified allegations about Mr. Trump.
in "BuzzFeed Posts Unverified Claims on Trump, Stirring Debate" 10 jan 2016
Do contra:
Of particular interest was the use of unsubstantiated information from anonymous sources, a practice that fueled some of the so-called fake news — false rumors passed off as legitimate journalism — that proliferated during the presidential election.
in "BuzzFeed Posts Unverified Claims on Trump, Stirring Debate" 10 jan 2016
Mas esse contra arrumamos em fake news: i) a legitimidade da publicação do relatório - que nada tem a ver com a legitimidade do relatório em si - depreende-se do briefing feito pelos serviços secretos aos seus presidentes, ii) o público é amplamente alertado para a natureza questionável do mesmo.
Do pró (*):
* Porque, o chato do jornalismo cinzento objectivo é que eles têm de equilibrar as perspectivas dadas, e às vezes lá acertam.
BuzzFeed’s move was welcomed by some people, who expressed concern that news outlets and government officials with access to the allegations had not disclosed them sooner. Almost immediately, the report’s publication prompted questions from Hillary Clinton’s camp about why the claims had not surfaced earlier. (...) Brian Fallon, Mrs. Clinton’s chief campaign spokesman wrote on Twitter "I repeat: certain media outlets were told this prior to November 8."
in "BuzzFeed Posts Unverified Claims on Trump, Stirring Debate" 10 jan 2016
Ou, o resumo mais significativo, na Slate:
BuzzFeed’s Bombshell Why the site published the explosive memos about Trump and Russia—and why no one beat them to it"The memos BuzzFeed published today are newsworthy documents, and Buzzfeed’s decision to publish was news too. In covering BuzzFeed’s scoop and its implications, we described the allegations in the memos and the questions about their veracity; we thought it served our readers best to republish the documents as well so readers could evaluate the memos for themselves."
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 who 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.
BuzzFeed posted the dossier in full, prefacing it with a series of caveats about its veracity and updating it shortly afterward with a vehement denial from Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen
Why did the site opt to publish what so many others had opted not to? And why now, in particular? The answers point to a media industry that still takes its "gatekeeping" functions more seriously than it sometimes gets credit for—even if it doesn’t always perform them.
["Acting here in a different tradition"] It’s a tradition in which the notion of media as privileged gatekeeper of information is viewed with disdain. It’s one in which sensitive and embarrassing information about public figures is readily disclosed, ostensibly out of respect for the public’s intelligence and right to know. (...) There is virtue in this posture among journalists, insofar as it serves as a societal counterweight to the tendency of people in positions of power to suppress information that could embarrass them. (...) It’s at least theoretically possible for such a disclosure to both violate traditional journalistic norms and benefit society in ways that transcend journalistic ethics altogether.
in "BuzzFeed’s Bombshell Why the site published the explosive memos about Trump and Russia—and why no one beat them to it" 11 jan 2017
Voltemos então à conclusão já adiantada:
It’s also possible for the publication of incendiary allegations to backfire in ugly ways, not only for the figures involved, but for BuzzFeed and the broader media—especially if they turn out not to be true.
in "BuzzFeed’s Bombshell Why the site published the explosive memos about Trump and Russia—and why no one beat them to it" 11 jan 2017
We beg to differ: depois de o ignorarem por tanto tempo, com todas as oportunidades para o investigar, e a atacarem aquele que o traz a público, a bem de uma imprensa já à beira da irrelevância: será muito, muito mau, se, pelo contrário, esse relatório não for falso.
What’s remarkable, in a time of social media, blogs, polarized politics, hacks, and leaks, is that the dossier stayed private for so long (...) Clearly the internet has not turned journalism into a shameless, traffic-thirsty free-for-all
in "BuzzFeed’s Bombshell Why the site published the explosive memos about Trump and Russia—and why no one beat them to it" 11 jan 2017
Certamente, to be continued.
** UPDATE **
E um dia depois (*) faz-se luz. Another nail in tha coffin'
* Apesar de vários artigos datarem de 11 de janeiro, descontem o fuso horário: nove e meia cá são 4h30 da manhã em NY, meia noite cá são 19h lá. Nós começamos o dia mais cedo, eles acabam o dia mais tarde, os seu prime time é o nosso dia seguinte.
BuzzFeed was right to publish Trump-Russia filesEarly Tuesday evening, spurred by a CNN story, BuzzFeed published a 35-page dossier on Donald Trump’s alleged long-term relationship with Russia. (...) Within hours, The Guardian, The Washington Post, and The New York Times, among many others, slammed the digital powerhouse for its decision, while pointing out that they, too, had seen the documents but declined to make them public.
BuzzFeed took a different but still well-established approach: Release what you can when you have it and see what new leads it generates. If this strategy pays off, the outlet that has morphed from a cat-video factory to a font of serious journalism could end up with some terrific scoops. You can almost hear the rest of the media muttering, “Damn, why didn’t we think of that first?”
It’s also worth noting how many reporters apparently have had access to the documents for weeks or months (...) That means an unknown number of top journalists have been trying—and apparently failing—to pin down these details, which is extraordinary since, as others have noted, “[t]his is a document about meetings that either took place or did not take place, stays in hotels that either happened or didn’t, travel that either happened or did not happen. It should be possible to know whether at least some of these allegations are true or false.” So why hasn’t it been possible? And why are so many journalists describing the contents of these documents not just as “unverified,” but as unverifiable? The Post’s Margaret Sullivan was among those taking BuzzFeed to task, writing that “[i]n an era when trust in the media is already in the gutter, this does absolutely nothing to help.” But does a media that sits indefinitely on a potentially gigantic story inspire greater public trust? Hardly.
in "BuzzFeed was right to publish Trump-Russia files" 11 jan 2017