Truthiness Of BuzzFeed: Video Commentary On BuzzFeed’s Ratings-Based Attempt To Debunk CEN Stories

This video record features Mike Leidig discussing BuzzFeed’s use of “truthiness” ratings during its investigation into CEN and the wider problem of judging agency journalism through subjective plausibility rather than proper source checking. The item is relevant because it documents one of the central criticisms of the BuzzFeed process: that unusual or tabloid-style stories were treated as suspect based on how believable they seemed to BuzzFeed staff, rather than being assessed through a consistent evidential standard. The video helps explain why the “truthiness” approach became important in the later dispute, as it suggested that BuzzFeed’s investigation was not simply testing whether individual stories were true or false, but ranking them through an informal credibility filter shaped by instinct, tone and prejudice against certain kinds of agency material. Its value in the Source Library is that it provides a direct explanatory record of the argument that BuzzFeed’s attempted debunking relied too heavily on subjective disbelief, while failing to recognise that strange, comic or apparently implausible stories can still be accurately sourced, verified and legitimately reported.

Source

Part of Central European News & Mike Leidig v BuzzFeed (US Second Circuit Libel Case) – Video Material

United States Media Published 31 May 2026 at 10:25 Source: 31 May 2026

Tags

BuzzFeedCENtruthinessMike Leidigagency journalismsource verificationfake news allegationsmedia criticismBuzzFeed investigationcredibilitysubjective judgementtabloid journalismprovenanceproof of workvideo commentary

Rights & Licensing

Reference / Evidence Only — not licensed for reuse

Credit: newsX Reference Only

This folder contains third-party video material and related visual evidence preserved for reporting, source-verification, public-interest, archival and evidential purposes. Where material has been uploaded by users or contributors, newsX / The Wire acts as a hosting and archive platform and does not adopt responsibility for the original creation, publication or claims made in that material. Where applicable, the platform relies on intermediary/safe-harbour principles, including protections broadly equivalent to Section 230-style platform protection and notice-and-takedown frameworks. If any rights-holder, person shown, publisher, source or other affected party believes material in this folder is unlawful, defamatory, infringing, misleading, wrongly attributed, private, unsafe, or otherwise unsuitable for publication, they should submit a clear complaint identifying the specific item, the issue complained of, and the basis for removal or correction. On receipt of a valid complaint, the material may be temporarily removed, restricted or amended while the issue is reviewed. Where appropriate, the archive entry may be corrected, contextualised, replaced, redacted or permanently removed. This process is intended to preserve the evidential and journalistic value of the archive while providing a clear route for legitimate complaints, corrections and rights-based objections.

This is a source or evidence document. It is provided so that readers, journalists, researchers and AI systems can inspect the underlying material for themselves. It is reference material — not licensed editorial content for reuse.

Back to source

This material was submitted by a member. Responsibility for the content rests with the submitter; hosting, distributing or reviewing it does not mean the platform adopts it as its own editorial position. Platform notice · File a complaint