What is Digg?85 Comments
- str3ama, on 05/02/2008, -6/+31ha ha ..their medium is dying.
- inactive, on 05/02/2008, -2/+24Good. Reporting these days is a joke. It's all just copies of AP newswires and lame human interest stories about celebrities.
- akatsuki, on 05/02/2008, -1/+21well, that is what happens when you stop reporting news and just reprint AP newswire stories and don't do any real investigative work or pick controversial positions that might offend advertisers.
- TalenGTP, on 05/02/2008, -4/+22dugg for New York Times going into the *****
- oboy, on 05/02/2008, -6/+17Some of my best times in youth were spent sitting down in a lawn chair with a cup of coffee in the day or a beer at night reading a good newspaper or one of the old school magazines like the Atlantic Monthly or The Newyorker. I haven't read anything from a paper publication in forever, unless it's online, of course. Still, it saddens me that we are seeing these venerable old rags failing. They need to adapt. They need to take their great writing and figure out how to expose them to the world of the Internet. Simply putting up a website is just not enough anymore.
Thanks for listening for my rant.
JD Rucker - oboy - prophet5, on 05/02/2008, -2/+13People aren't fooled by their lies - they just move on....
- inactive, on 05/02/2008, -1/+9Why, I think some smaller ones are doing a great job. The Bakersfield Californian, for example. Thing is, online ad sales revenue don't even come CLOSE to what you get in newspapers...because advertisers still are unsure about online.
- inactive, on 05/02/2008, -1/+9Internet *****, do you use it?
- GregLoire, on 05/02/2008, -1/+7I doubt there's anything they can do about this. I graduated from college about 2 years ago, and I don't know a single person around my age who actually subscribes to a print newspaper. The entire medium will likely die out along with the current subscribers, as I doubt the upcoming generation is going to provide enough subscription revenue for them to stay afloat.
- geoffg, on 05/02/2008, -3/+8Who will tell us what to think to make the world a better place? :'(
- ugmold, on 05/02/2008, -2/+7They deserve it
- 3style, on 05/02/2008, -2/+6The problem is these brands which are extremely valuable have management that are sticking to the old rules of advertising. The online advertising industry is in it's infancy, if they get some forward thinking marketing execs they will turn around these brands immediately. My opinion is the industry needs to have a standardized rating system that properly gives potential advertisers exact traffic and demographic information, allowing sales people to properly market the websites or pages to advertising clients.
- dan222555, on 05/02/2008, -1/+5That's the point isn't it? The American people want news that's reported without bias.
- SymbolicChaos, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4I see your point, sir, and in a utopia where everyone does everything for free without want for compensation, this amazing theory on making money might be possible. But not here. Also, the Journal I work for has 41 publications and puts it on your lawn for free. SO, the advertisements really ARE the only way we make money and keep the newspaper going (ergo, the reporters reporting).
But what a wonderful comment, and thanks for the intelligent, well-though-out feedback. - DiggOrNotToDigg, on 05/02/2008, -2/+6“In nature, it’s not the strongest nor the most intelligent who survives. It’s the most adaptable to change”, Charles Darwin
Sorry to say newspapers didn't adapt well to the changes. Plus some are printing more propaganda that real news. - insonh, on 05/02/2008, -2/+6it couldn't be because they don't report the news could it?
an opinion isn't news and neither is anything involving some self centered druggie from the entertainment field - blankhorizons, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4Louder next time.
- bromac, on 05/02/2008, -2/+5You missed my point.
The best times in most people's youth involve enjoying your physically fit bodies, which you lose with age. You can read newspapers and sip coffee when you're 50. It's harder though to play football and hockey, for example.
The best times in my youth involved inner tubing down white water creeks and reenacting various professional wrestling moves on friends trampolines, along with various other energy-filled activities. Enjoy them while you can. - bromac, on 05/02/2008, -2/+5You spent your youth reading newspapers? I'm not saying it's not admirable to be well informed, but I wouldn't call reading a newspaper the most invigorating experience of my youth.
- inactive, on 05/02/2008, -4/+7Can we hope and pray the Hufftington post dies, implodes, gets buried in an earthquake, gets 1 billion paper cuts and dies an agonizing death?! Please, is it too much to ask?!
- inactive, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3This seems to make a lot of sense on the face of it but then I think of digg...
- quiggibub, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3I'll be happy when I see one of my local papers go away. Unless Al-Qaeda decides to bomb Troy, NY while insulting Joe Bruno AND the police chief, that paper won't have anything more informative than a 2 paragraph column.
- lonedust, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3Nelson!
- dan222555, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3If you think liberal bias in the media is a myth you're out of your mind. Go read one of the numerous books about written by former journalists who experienced it first hand. Or look at studies like this one: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is ... Or this one: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageI ... which found that a majority of national journalists describe themselves as liberal.
This is no myth. Casting it as a myth and ignoring it's impact is on the biggest liberal talking points ever. But they've quieted that down recently because the bias in the press recently has become so blatantly obvious. - Kevin108, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3Newspapers are killing themselves as much as being killed by other news mediums. Traditional newspapers come in an unwieldy format, they devote far too much space to advertisements, most writers offer their spin of a given story instead of the facts, they are too expensive and compared to internet news sources, newspapers are untimely and difficult to procure.
Compared to magazines, reading a newspaper is like unfolding a glove box road map. Newspapers should be printed more like magazines - in a size that's easy to carry with you and in a layout that's easy to pause reading and resume from.
Newspapers cost too much to be so full of advertisements. Radio has ads and is given to us freely. Likewise for many smaller, local newspapers. Newspapers need to be either free or ad-free.
Often news web sites and blogs are the only trustworthy and reliable source of real news these days. The larger papers can't offend their precious advertisers and limit what they choose to publish. Also, many writers let their own views, virtues and vices taint their work on such a scale that anything you read in a newspaper requires further research to prove its credibility.
It's hard to beat free and now. There are so many sources for news and the internet lets readers spend their time choosing which topics they wish to read about. Newspapers are a grab bag. For any given reader of any given issue, there may or may not be something actually worth reading about. Topped with the fact that internet news is available immediately as opposed to sometime tomorrow, newspapers are a dying medium. - cdstaff, on 05/02/2008, -4/+7Its that damned internets fault
- dougs55, on 05/02/2008, -1/+4This is an old recurring story. The newspapers problems aren't craigslist or bloggers either, they just aren't doing the job you'd expect them to do in a democratic country.
- tbhurst, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2Why is that happening? Yes, of course the internet is the primary driver. But have you seen the size of the Sunday paper lately? And it's all classifieds, cars, and real estate. I am reluctantly about to cancel my Denver Post even though I thin it's a good paper - just because of all of the ads and waste.
- inactive, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2Kindles are the future of newspaper
- WoollyMittens, on 05/02/2008, -3/+5Why... Fox news of-course.
- gtlogic, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2It's all about progress. These writers will be better off doing something else. Like writing the script for GTA5.
- meisalex, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2They just need to put Spider man or Batman on the front page.
- troye, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2buried
- cubicledrone, on 05/02/2008, -1/+3Oh, I'm going to take a wild guess here. Is it because nobody reports news any more? Is it because management (there it is again, middle management clogging the toilet with their bald heads) don't let journalists be journalists? Is it because they can't write a headline? A real news lead? How about a story without opinion? Or a smartass comment? Or a failed attempt at humor? Or a hype-phrase like "memory-hungry" or "risk-averse" or "profit-minded?"
You know, if a young reporter got a hold of a real story in this country, they'd be smothered in FAT management ASS so fast it would turn your hair white.
If you are a "journalist" and you categorize people as consumers, or use advertising slogans like "choosy moms" or "savvy shoppers," or if you misuse phrases like "begs the question," misspell five-letter words or put question marks in your headlines, you are a failure. You are illiterate, and nobody gives a ***** what you write. You should be fired and your newspaper should be bulldozed.
Can we see one story, just one, with a correct headline, that is hard news start to finish and is written by a journalist who has a clue? We won't, and that's why nobody reads newspapers. The end. - toastgodsupreme, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2But the medium has changed. Radio isn't what it used to be. You have to remember that before tv, radio shows (real shows, like, a series) were the thing. Those died out.
I feel the newspaper will die out completely though eventually. There's nothing it can really evolve into. - zeebusboy, on 05/02/2008, -1/+3Die you lying motherfsckers! You will not be missed.
- thescimitar, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2I'm about your age probably (26) and I just subscribed to a paper. I do most of my work and spend much of my life online. In the wake of all that, it's really kind of relaxing to pick up a physical paper, sit back in a chair, and just read. I take my paper to work, and read it during lunch, in my studio, or outside, wherever. I realize that few people put much stock in the enjoyment of this sort of simple pleasure, but I've found it relaxes me quite a bit. I also retain considerably more of what I read in a paper than what I read online, for whatever reason.
- troye, on 05/02/2008, -1/+3Who is digging this guy down?
He is true you know - to an extent. Big Media does shape and mould people of all ages. And now via web comments people can know what other people around them and around the globe are thinking, not just what a couple of rich people are thinking. With the internet, people are better able to ask questions and scrutinize the news.
I think this is good for us Humans in perspective. These newspaper companies just have to get with the changing ecosphere, which is "more online stuff" or "publish online and don't neglect the internet." - dan222555, on 05/02/2008, -2/+4It's about so much more than just being critical of the President. There shouldn't be any doubt in anyone's mind that the media in this country has shifted further and further to the left in recent years.
- whorn76, on 05/02/2008, -1/+3Damn global warming...
- modad, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1cubicledrone is right, at least for the newspapers in my region. The first thing they cut down on is the newsroom, while the ad department gets beefed up. I have no problem with increasing the ad department, but if there's no product (i.e.no news) then no one wants the paper. They'll usually just focus on using AP or Reuters stories, which is the same content you can get anywhere else, including online. The local angle is sacrificed, and it hurts circulation. And to reply to SymbolicChaos, not every newspaper is pickup driven, as is the case in many metro areas (love reading the paper on the subway). In non-metro areas, it's all about subscription, so they're hurting extra bad.
- ogden, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Out here on the west coast... I find the LA Times to be totally irrelevant. They are as intellectually dishonest as fox news having devoted themselves completely and unquestioningly to a liberal/socialist agenda.
Just like fox news and the neocons constantly use fear to manipulate people ... every article in the LA times is equally emotionally manipulative tripe about someone (often an illegal immigrant) who just needs tons of tax money. - scstraus, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Is it too much to ask that they take the horrible cable news with them, or even better, throw them under the tracks?
- SkittishCoyote, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Just drink the KoolAid!
- troye, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1/sarcasm, there I did it for you. +1
- troye, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1cellphones as e-readers that report real news.
PDF on smartphones is cool, but I can scroll better if I view it in good ol' HTML. The web is the future my friend, the web. - troye, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1*****!
My smartphone is the future of reading news. Just put it in HTML please. - cubicledrone, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2Advertisements are not the only way you make money. When your CIRCULATION goes up, your AD RATES go up. Want to know how to increase circulation?
Hire a ***** reporter and let them report the ***** NEWS.
Thank you. - Cornrider, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1The solution: include a 120 page porno section in the back (and a tasty snack) and sales will come back to normal.
-
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is