What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
30 Comments
- tyghent, on 07/17/2009, -0/+17I would pay for reported news. I'm not talking opinions or "expert" analysis—there's enough of that around. I'm talking news gatherers finding out what's really going on in the world; the truth that lies behind the promotion, hype and spin.
- milomilomilo, on 07/19/2009, -1/+11Popularity is not synonymous with quality.
And who the hell says MSNBC is the best news source.
News should be gathered from multiple sources, compared and than discussed.
And you know that pro-Fox News is gonna get dugg down.
It's like passive aggressive trolling. - Swivelstick, on 07/19/2009, -1/+9I read posts like these always expecting it to be sarcastic. I then realise what a huge following these places have, then I shudder with apprehension.
- BeShirtHappy, on 07/17/2009, -1/+8I have to say... I wouldn't pay. Too many ways to find out the news online for free.
- otbeverly, on 07/19/2009, -0/+5And the ability to enact change without just being another societal pillar/institution (you know, like the Fourth Estate is supposed to be) ... I'd definitely pay for that!
I would think a news organization that truly watched out for the interest of the people and ignored business and special interests could make tons of money. - Majora26, on 07/19/2009, -0/+5Naa man The Onion is the best place to get news
- inactive, on 07/18/2009, -3/+7this is why newspapers are hurting so bad....they live in the past - time to move into the future boys!!!
- dreamache, on 07/19/2009, -1/+5There's a very small demographic that would actually pay for something like journalismonline.com. The current direction the web is heading is real-time social services like Twitter / Facebook. While in their infancy, I think in the near future at least, we're going to see these services mature into a way to access news / events in a real time manner for millions of people. Which = all the more hurt for news papers.
- esc27, on 07/19/2009, -0/+4The big problem I see is that the current model for terrestrial papers will not, cannot work online, paid or free. Somewhere between 50 and 75% of a local newspaper is stories from news-wire services or otherwise widely available information (sports scores, weather, etc.) What we really need is a way of disassociating stories from papers. The ideal would be a service that is location aware and builds a custom newspaper on the fly for a user based on his location (pulling in all sorts of local stories and articles that don't make national news.) I would pay a fair price for that.
- inactive, on 07/19/2009, -0/+4 I won't pay,won't happen.
- Disgod, on 07/19/2009, -0/+3It's more intelligent and more believable.
- ShoggothDreams, on 07/19/2009, -4/+7....insert laugh track... here.
- whatthefu, on 07/19/2009, -0/+2Yes, there seems to be so little of that these days.
- inactive, on 07/19/2009, -1/+3Except there are no liberal publications. ,,Wish there were,but there is just one voice now,the conservative voice and it's determined to never let any other voice be heard ever again.
- andymci, on 07/19/2009, -0/+2I'll pay for unique content. Something of value, something I can't get anywhere else. If it's news updates or similar articles? Absolutely not.
- spudhead, on 07/19/2009, -0/+2Ultimately, we're all going to pay for it.
It's just that we'll be paying for not having seen the value that content producers create. Their profit model has allowed them to continue to move toward the web, but at some point, the bills will have to be paid.
And you want unbiased, qualified facts all the time - every time! That's laughable. When there's no one left paying for news content all you're going to get is content directly created by lobbyists, the government, corporations, and other tainted groups and a whole lot of opinion without information.
We're already paying for it now with fewer and fewer international journalists, very few investigative journalists, and a whole lot of news aggregation and opinion. - 3rdDay, on 07/19/2009, -0/+2I think the print media is screwed and that the web will not be able to produce a financial model that allows quality journalism to be created. It's the loss of worthwhile reportage, not the change in the medium, that counts.
- inactive, on 07/19/2009, -0/+2"Hardly a day goes by without some piece of news about newspapers trying to devise fresh ways to get consumers to pay for all the free content they're currently pushing out over the web."
some pieces of news... like this article? - spudhead, on 07/19/2009, -0/+2Precisely.
- spudhead, on 07/19/2009, -0/+1Perhaps you'd like to provide a few examples of content companies that are using the web effectively but aren't charging for content.
By the way, there are a lot of people making profits by assisting companies who can't use the internet effectively. I'm guessing a few Digg readers would even fall under that category. - philoponia, on 07/19/2009, -0/+1That's what your local news used to be. That's how newspapers had something that you wanted, but couldn't get anywhere else, and so people paid for it.
- philoponia, on 07/19/2009, -0/+1I think you can do this with google news
- bhussobama, on 07/19/2009, -0/+1Journalism Online, Old Media Suicide Pact, Gathers Steam
- yoker88, on 11/05/2009, -0/+0Good stuff!
http://dailyamateurz.blogspot.com - olibaba25, on 07/19/2009, -0/+0The bottom line is that newspapers are facing their inevitable decline vis-a-vis the internet. There is, at least for me, no real reason to pay for a printed newspaper that reports yesterdays news when I can find news online for free, and without delay.
Adapt or disappear, and charging for news items is a bad idea, as there are so many free sources available. - thegrandunion, on 07/19/2009, -0/+0even though newspapers are dead, Washingtonpost is still a good company to invest in.
- vagitoe, on 07/19/2009, -2/+2This is all fine and good to talk about, but what about us -- the consumers?
Do WE want to pay for our news? I sure don't... and if we had to, then how would websites like Digg operate then? Would we be able to use proxy servers if we had to pay, and what about people who read online because they DON'T have to pay.
I think this is a horrible idea and I am fully against it -- it just sounds like a company that wants to profit of off other companies who can't use the internet effectively. - BillOReilly, on 07/19/2009, -5/+0Fox News, always fair and balanced.
- ketedford, on 07/19/2009, -7/+2No need to worry. Obama, The Most Merciful, will bail out all the liberal publications.
- DavidNiven, on 07/19/2009, -8/+2Take a look at Drudgereport, Worldnetdaily, and Foxnews.com. These three news sources on the internet have higher ratings and reliability than all other sources put together.
...unless you want to keep sticking your head in the sand and pretending that MSNBC is the best news source out there. :-)
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is