This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/11/buzzfeed-denies-deleting-critical-articles-to-appease-advertisers

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
BuzzFeed denies deleting critical articles to appease advertisers BuzzFeed denies deleting critical articles to appease advertisers
(35 minutes later)
The news and entertainment site BuzzFeed has denied claims that it deleted two articles that criticised advertisers in order to appease them.The news and entertainment site BuzzFeed has denied claims that it deleted two articles that criticised advertisers in order to appease them.
The articles were removed because of editorial concerns, the site’s editor-in-chief Ben Smith told staff in an email on Friday. He added that both had since been reinstated because their deletion had been against BuzzFeed’s policy. The articles were removed because of editorial concerns, the site’s editor-in-chief Ben Smith told staff in an email on Friday. He said both had since been reinstated because their deletion had been against BuzzFeed’s policy.
In his note, Smith said that he decided to order the articles’ removal against the better judgment of his subordinates and said he had “screwed up”. Smith said that he decided to order the articles’ removal against the better judgment of his subordinates and said he had “screwed up”.
He acted “without any respect to our standards or process”, he said.He acted “without any respect to our standards or process”, he said.
Both of the deletions, Smith wrote, “involved the same thing: my overreaction to questions we’ve been wrestling with about the place of personal opinion pieces on our site”.Both of the deletions, Smith wrote, “involved the same thing: my overreaction to questions we’ve been wrestling with about the place of personal opinion pieces on our site”.
He added: “I reacted impulsively when I saw the posts and I was wrong to do that.”He added: “I reacted impulsively when I saw the posts and I was wrong to do that.”
BuzzFeed had faced claims this week from other media outlets, including the news website Gawker, that it was acting with commercial, rather than editorial considerations in mind. BuzzFeed faced claims this week from other media outlets, including the news website Gawker, that it was acting with commercial, rather than editorial considerations in mind.
Smith told staff: “You also have a right to ask about whether we did this because of advertiser pressure, as Gawker suggested. The answer is no.Smith told staff: “You also have a right to ask about whether we did this because of advertiser pressure, as Gawker suggested. The answer is no.
“I field complaints all the time from companies and individuals, including advertisers, and see it as my job to shield you from that pressure.”“I field complaints all the time from companies and individuals, including advertisers, and see it as my job to shield you from that pressure.”
Appreciate the criticism. We just reinstated two posts and I sent this note to staffers. pic.twitter.com/YodxHiQmt2Appreciate the criticism. We just reinstated two posts and I sent this note to staffers. pic.twitter.com/YodxHiQmt2
Gawker published a piece on Thursday reporting that BuzzFeed had deleted an article that attacked Dove’s latest advertising campaign. Gawker published a piece on Thursday reporting that BuzzFeed deleted an article that attacked Dove’s latest advertising campaign.
An update to that article included a denial from BuzzFeed that advertising concerns had anything to do with the decision to delete.An update to that article included a denial from BuzzFeed that advertising concerns had anything to do with the decision to delete.
And, on Friday, the Guido Fawkes blog published a similar article about the deletion of a piece in which a Buzzfeed journalist attacked Hasbro’s board game Monopoly.And, on Friday, the Guido Fawkes blog published a similar article about the deletion of a piece in which a Buzzfeed journalist attacked Hasbro’s board game Monopoly.
A notice that was put in place of the article said that it was “removed at the request of the author” – the former Daily Telegraph assistant comment editor Tom Chivers. A notice that was put in place of the article said it was “removed at the request of the author” – the former Daily Telegraph assistant comment editor Tom Chivers.
According to BuzzFeed, Smith ordered the article’s removal and Chivers agreed. The site said that Chivers then suggested the note be added saying that he had asked for it to be taken down.According to BuzzFeed, Smith ordered the article’s removal and Chivers agreed. The site said that Chivers then suggested the note be added saying that he had asked for it to be taken down.
The site could not say why Chivers had done so.The site could not say why Chivers had done so.
Despite agreeing to his article’s removal, Chivers did not delete a tweet he had posted promoting it. Again, BuzzFeed could not say why. Chivers declined to comment on Friday.Despite agreeing to his article’s removal, Chivers did not delete a tweet he had posted promoting it. Again, BuzzFeed could not say why. Chivers declined to comment on Friday.
I've meant to say this for ages. Monopoly is a DREADFUL game. Dreadful. You must never play it http://t.co/bIO2IBGuOY pic.twitter.com/J8RiLw4tVwI've meant to say this for ages. Monopoly is a DREADFUL game. Dreadful. You must never play it http://t.co/bIO2IBGuOY pic.twitter.com/J8RiLw4tVw
It is not the first time BuzzFeed has faced claims that it removed content to avoid offending advertisers.It is not the first time BuzzFeed has faced claims that it removed content to avoid offending advertisers.
In 2013, Mark Duffy – who had recently been fired by BuzzFeed – claimed that Smith ordered him to remove an article he wrote criticising Unilever’s Axe bodyspray. In 2013, Mark Duffy, who had recently been fired by BuzzFeed, claimed that Smith ordered him to remove an article he wrote criticising Unilever’s Axe bodyspray.
In an article on Gawker, Duffy wrote: “Get this: [Smith] made me delete it one month after it was posted, due to apparent pressure from Axe’s owner Unilever. How that’s for editorial integrity?”In an article on Gawker, Duffy wrote: “Get this: [Smith] made me delete it one month after it was posted, due to apparent pressure from Axe’s owner Unilever. How that’s for editorial integrity?”
Duffy added an allegation that Smith also questioned other posts he had put together that were critical of advertisers.Duffy added an allegation that Smith also questioned other posts he had put together that were critical of advertisers.
In response, Smith said that his problem was the tone of the article. And he said: “Our editorial team operates independently of advertisers, and I’ve never based a decision about reporting on an advertiser’s needs.” In response, Smith said that his problem was the tone of the article. He said: “Our editorial team operates independently of advertisers, and I’ve never based a decision about reporting on an advertiser’s needs.”
Smith also pointed out that other posts that were critical of the Unilever brand were left untouched and are still available on the site.Smith also pointed out that other posts that were critical of the Unilever brand were left untouched and are still available on the site.