- Someone with first hand knowledge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Criticism_a...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post#Criticism_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal#Editor...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Controversies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Times#Other_contro...
These are just the "big controversies". They all have stories which slant in particular directions as benefits the paper, its owners, writers and editors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pr-s-6dEEk
Before anyone starts claiming this only happens to BuzzFeed and not BuzzFeed News, there's plenty of interviews of him discussing how there should not be any separation of editorial oversight and marketing as well:
No. I reject the notion that Buzzfeed News is on any level professional. I accept that they work on the stopped-clock principal at best.
[0] reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1PD01J
> “BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate,” Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller office, said in the statement.
This is a very carefully-constructed statement. Note how it doesn't actually say BuzzFeed was wrong. It just says specific statements and characterization are "not accurate", but doesn't elaborate on what statements or characterizations, or on how inaccurate they are. This reads like a statement designed to placate Trump without actually refuting much of anything.
It literally says Buzzfeed's statements were inaccurate.