Source Library Central European News & Mike Leidig v BuzzFeed (US Second Circuit Libel Case) – BF Case DocumentsBen Smith Pushes BuzzFeed Team To Finish CEN Story

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

File BuzzFeed_009599.PDF · 33.1 KBDownload

Published SourceSource / Evidence Document

Ben Smith Pushes BuzzFeed Team To Finish CEN Story

This 16 January 2015 email exchange shows BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith briefly checking in on the developing CEN story and asking whether it is “closer to being done”, after Alan White had described the material as potentially exposing competitors publishing “huge lies” on a “close-to-industrial scale” and likely to end CEN’s business. The document is significant because Smith’s contribution is not a detailed discussion of the evidence, methodology, language problems or source-verification gaps, but a short managerial push to keep the story moving towards publication. It should be read alongside the earlier “easy bit” and Craig Silverman budget documents, because it helps document the pressure from senior BuzzFeed leadership to complete the story while the underlying reporting strategy, original verification work and reliance on Silverman were still being debated by the UK team.

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 SmithAlan WhiteTom PhillipsLuke LewisCraig SilvermanBuzzFeed UKBuzzFeed NewsCEN investigationeditorial pressurepublication pressureeasy bitsource verificationproof gaponline debunkinginvestigation methodologysenior editorial oversightfake news narrativelibel 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.

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