The NYT reports:
Andrew Kaczynski, the BuzzFeed reporter whose scoop about Donald J. Trump’s early support for the invasion of Iraq surfaced in the presidential debate last week, is leaving to join CNN, just a month before the election.Short-handed! (Funny to see that word again after delving into its significance yesterday, the first day of the new Supreme Court term, with the Court said to be "short-handed," something I problematized here and here.)
The two other members of BuzzFeed’s political research team, Nathan McDermott and Christopher Massie, and Kyle Blaine, the deputy politics editor, are also going to CNN, leaving BuzzFeed short-handed for the final stretch of the campaign.
Back to the NYT:
The departures, which come only weeks after BuzzFeed said it was formally dividing its news and entertainment divisions, are also likely to resurface questions about the company’s plans for its news operation.... The moves... leave a void at BuzzFeed, which has built its news reputation on its political coverage and is gearing up for what will probably be a frenetic last month of the campaign....
The departures could also feed the apparent feud between Jeff Zucker, the president of CNN, who recently said he did not think BuzzFeed was a “legitimate” news organization, and [BuzzFeed editor in chief Ben Smith], who said that CNN had given too much airtime to Donald Trump in the interest of ratings....
On Monday, Mr. Smith said in an email: “I guess this means that CNN has seen the value in doing the kind of tough reporting on Donald Trump that BuzzFeed News has been doing all presidential cycle, and we wish Andrew good luck.”
पोस्ट्स
२७ टिप्पण्या:
The departures could also feed the apparent feud between Jeff Zucker, the president of CNN, who recently said he did not think BuzzFeed was a “legitimate” news organization
Oh good lord. Clearly a graduate of the Clinton Cchool of Hypocrisy.
Goebbels and Riefenstahl also quarreled about the best way to serve the party.
"CNN drains the political talent from Buzzfeed.
Here 'CNN' 'Buzzfeed' and 'drains' all belong together, 'talent' is the thing that's not like other things.
It's not as if CNN bought Drudge.
Didn't Monica drain Bill's political talent.
A private citizen had cool support for the war, then pulled that support off the table.
Hillary actually voted for the war. Biased hack DNC press will now tell you which one is worse.
You prove your chops inside the Democrat Media Industrial Complex by digging for meaningless dirt that can be manipulated into a narrative that helps democrats.
CNN = "Clinton's News Network"
So CNN, another tentacle of the DNC, is bringing in reinforcements for Hillary's campaign.
"Problematized"? Ann, I don't think anyone who uses "problematized" unironically should be busting anyone's chops for garnering attention by using arcane or archaic words.
File this under "news that is not news". Now, if CNN picked up Sean Hannity, that'd be news. This is up there with "Jets and Giants trade punters".
Consider whether the hire would have taken place if the "journolist" in question had published screeds critical of the Empress.
Buzzfeed was very useful to the old dogs of the MSM when they had nothing -- NOTHING -- to attack Trump on regarding Iraq. They managed to turn an offhand remark on a radio show made ONE TIME with clearly ambivalent intent into a more important "position" for Trump than the actual vote-to-go-to-war that Hillary made.
Nice work media tricksters. Reward: promotion to CNN.
Wouldn't it be great to have a media that thought that its job was to do "tough reporting" on all candidates?
""CNN drains the political talent from Buzzfeed."
Don't look in the drain trap.
I am The Replacement Laslo.
It's not that "garner" is arcane, or archaic, it's that it has been almost completely replaced by 'get' in English usage, a perfectly fine word that the media seems to have it out against. You show me the objection to 'garner' she uses where the word 'get' would not work better, and then we can talk.
Words that have been completely replaced in English usage are said to be archaic, no? Or do you find "archaic" to be similarly offensive to modern taste, replaced, so to speak, by "replaced"?
And the news business still revolves around Trump.
Gotta get some more Clinton water carriers at the Clinton News Network STAT!
Buzzfeed was very useful to the old dogs of the MSM when they had nothing -- NOTHING -- to attack Trump on regarding Iraq. They managed to turn an offhand remark on a radio show made ONE TIME with clearly ambivalent intent into a more important "position" for Trump than the actual vote-to-go-to-war that Hillary made.
He was also extremely critical of the war years before Hillary was. But a Stern interview CLEARLY trumps a vote for war.
OBJECTION: Assumes facts not in evidence.
First you must prove Buzzfeed had any talent.
CNN..Buzzfeed...NBC etc ..their journolistors are indistinguishable to me. Not a conservative to be found at any of them.
"...are also likely to resurface questions..." Are these questions slick and shiny? Or do they have a dull or bumpy surface! They are thorny, perhaps. NYT, eh?
I see a pattern:
1992 Hillary says she ain't some Tammy Wynette standing by her man. From that point on she stood by her meandering man and has reaped praise from Feminists and MSM ever since.
1999 Hillary says marriage between a man and woman is a special sacred bedrock foundation of our nation and DOMA was necessary to reinforce that fact. Since 2011 she has pretended she was always for gay marriage and the MSM and gayctivists have praised her effusively. {To my knowledge Trump has never expressed a negative view toward gays and is seen as friendly towards "the community."]
2002 Hillary votes with unanimous (minus one) Congress to approve Iraq War. Three years later she "regrets" her decision and opposes "surge" and MSM and doves pretend that she's "always opposed war against Oceania."
But yeah, that ambivalent Howard Stern interview Donald did was WAY more meaningful than a sitting Senator (wife of the guy who claimed Saddam had WMDs by the way) who actually authorized the war.
Got it. And the MSM wonders why the public holds them in lower esteem than either actual candidate.
Chuck---What am I? Chopped liver?
CNN's reporting will obviously be worse than usual. I'm trying to decide if Buzzfeed's reporting will be worse or just suck less.
Sir Lags, how could it possibly NOT be be worse or suck less?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा