[malvosenior]

That's a great example of how shoddy Buzzfeed's journalism is and why they shouldn't be supported.

> BuzzFeed was harshly criticized for publishing what Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan called "scurrilous allegations dressed up as an intelligence report meant to damage Donald Trump"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier#P...

[austhrow743]

Doesn't seem shoddy to me. I agree completely with the quote from buzzfeeds executive staff. The materials were newsworthy because they were "in wide circulation at the highest levels of American government and media".

[eiieirurjdndjd]

Hrm. In hindsight, it seems obviously preferable that the public got to view this dossier. It would have been hard to have an informed opinion about e.g. the Strozk situation without knowing about the dossier and it’s contents.

[malvosenior]

Presenting unsubstantiated rumors as news is not "obviously preferable".

[scottmf]

And Sullivan was wrong. Take a read of the “Veracity” section of that article.

[malvosenior]

I read it and it's still clearly unsubstantiated allegations and not factual news.