Source Library Central European News & Mike Leidig v BuzzFeed (US Second Circuit Libel Case) – BF Case DocumentsBuzzFeed Continues Searching For Original CEN Copy Late In Draft Process

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

File BuzzFeed_011925.PDF · 72.4 KBDownload

Published SourceSource / Evidence Document

BuzzFeed Continues Searching For Original CEN Copy Late In Draft Process

This 31 March 2015 document appears to record BuzzFeed’s continued attempt to locate or obtain original CEN copy while the article was already moving towards publication. The document is significant because the search for original copy goes directly to one of the central proof gaps in the BuzzFeed/CEN evidence chain: whether BuzzFeed could establish exactly what CEN had supplied, what later publishers had changed, and whether disputed wording, quotes or details came from CEN itself or from subsequent editing by client publications. It should be read alongside the late-March draft-review documents, Robert Colvile’s requests for screenshots, and later front-up emails asking whether BuzzFeed could verify the source of copy where verification was missing, because it helps show that the article was still being assembled around unresolved provenance questions rather than a complete original-copy evidence file.

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 LeidigAlan WhiteTom PhillipsRobert Colvileoriginal copyCEN copyprovenancesource verificationproof gapscreenshotslate draft processonline debunkingclient publicationsMailOnlineMirrorfake news narrativeinvestigation methodologylibel 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