Published SourceSource / Evidence Document

BuzzFeed Editors Reject Ben Smith’s Impulse To Delete Their Own CEN Story Text

This 22 April 2015 email chain shows BuzzFeed editors discussing how to handle BuzzFeed’s own previous CEN-based posts immediately before publication of the CEN article. Robert Colvile tells Lisa Tozzi, Tom Namako, Alan White and Shani Hilton that BuzzFeed was “basically calling out” the agency used by the Mail, Mirror and others for “awful inaccurate” stories, but therefore had to acknowledge where BuzzFeed had used CEN material itself. The significant point is that Lisa Tozzi says she does not think BuzzFeed should delete the original text, and Colvile replies that deletion had been “Ben’s original impulse” when the issue was first raised, but that he agrees it is better to add a note at the top. This matters because Ben Smith had apparently suggested the possibility of deleting BuzzFeed’s own CEN-based text, while other BuzzFeed editors recognised that would be less transparent and instead favoured editor’s notes or corrections. The document also repeats the awkward internal contrast: BuzzFeed was preparing to criticise rival publishers for using CEN material while managing the fact that it had also published CEN-linked items, including the Bieber bear attack story, which Colvile says was the only BuzzFeed example they had “conclusively debunked” at that stage.

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

BuzzFeedCENMike LeidigBen SmithRobert ColvileLisa TozziTom NamakoAlan WhiteShani HiltonLuke LewisAlison VingianoBieber bear attackBuzzFeed CEN usedelete the texteditor’s notecorrectiontransparencyMailMirrorrival publisherspre-publication editinglibel case evidence

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.

File BuzzFeed_008291.PDF · 151.0 KB Download

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