Source Library Central European News & Mike Leidig v BuzzFeed (US Second Circuit Libel Case) – BF Case DocumentsAlan White Says It Was Not True That BuzzFeed Had Never Been A CEN Client

PDF preview not loading? Open file in a new tab.

File BuzzFeed_000178.PDF · 70.8 KBDownload

Published SourceSource / Evidence Document

Alan White Says It Was Not True That BuzzFeed Had Never Been A CEN Client

This document is a 23 March 2015 BuzzFeed email with the subject “CEN Draft.docx”, showing Alan White, Tom Phillips and Craig Silverman discussing how to describe BuzzFeed’s own past use of CEN material. It is included in the Source Library as source/evidence material connected to the BuzzFeed/CEN case and the pre-publication development of BuzzFeed’s article. It records the team debating whether it was accurate or misleading to say BuzzFeed had “never been a client of CEN”, with Alan White explicitly stating that this was “not technically true” because BuzzFeed had bought CEN pictures and copy. It is relevant because it helps document the internal tension between BuzzFeed’s attempt to portray CEN as a discredited external source and the evidence that BuzzFeed itself had bought and used CEN material while preparing to attack the agency, its clients and the wider MailOnline-linked viral news market.

Source

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

Europe Media Published 1 May 2026 at 21:09 Source: 1 November 2016

Tags

BuzzFeedCENCentral European NewsAlan WhiteTom PhillipsCraig SilvermanCEN Draft23 March 2015BuzzFeed clientCEN picturesCEN copyMailOnlinesource evidencedisclosurepre-publication developmentfake news narrative

Rights & Licensing

Reference / Evidence Only — not licensed for reuse

Credit: newsX

These documents are made available as source material connected to the Central European News and Mike Leidig v BuzzFeed libel proceedings and the related book. They are provided for reference, research, and evidential context only. No reuse licence is granted by the uploader, and any further use is the responsibility of the person using the material.

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.

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