What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history – the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
54 Comments
- AmyVernon, on 04/06/2009, -1/+14I think it's a great concept and hopefully will work. I'm just glad to see folks trying to find other ways of funding newsgathering.
- 3rdDay, on 04/06/2009, -0/+11This is an interesting idea, but it has it's limits. How many people will actually fund an individual story? What are their motives? What about infrastructure costs? High cost endeavours like investigative journalism? Dull but necessary work like covering local council meetings? I suspect that what we are seeing is the emergence of something new that will not necessarily replace traditional journalism but still come to dominate the market. The old model is flawed but so is the new model.
- zombie210, on 04/06/2009, -1/+11Well, its not like current journalism can get WORSE, pussy whipped by advertisers and whomever owns them.
- Lst01, on 04/06/2009, -0/+9Most bloggers simply comment on stories from the NY Times, Washington Post or web-outlets like Politico. Even the cable news stations tend to rely on newspapers for most of their information. Maybe one day bloggers or sites like spot.us will be able to fill in the void but I highly doubt it.
- sugarazor, on 04/06/2009, -1/+9"Well, its not like current journalism can get WORSE"
I'd like to introduce you to the ninth layer of Hell, known as the blogosphere. Trust me, journalism can get a ***** of a lot worse. - brinkofjon, on 04/06/2009, -1/+8I watched my local news this morning for 30 minutes and got the following:
- 5 minutes of what I'm sure to them was witty repartee
- 10 minutes of soft news about kittens and the world's biggest cookie
- 5 minutes of weather including more witty repartee with someone ridiculously named Bob storm/mountain/rains/tsunami/snows or maybe fog
- 5 minutes of local news about new mall openings and local sports
- 5 minutes of actual news about politics, world events and commentary
When I spend 30 minutes on a news website I get:
- 1 minute with a search feature looking for whatever I want to find on that site
- 29 minutes of stuff I actually care about (whatever that may happen to be at the time)
A newspapers are no better, I spend 20 minutes scanning headlines for about 2 minutes of actual interesting content and ink on my hands - a2fan, on 04/06/2009, -3/+10"Spot.us has been providing local reporters with ways to get paid while researching the stories the community wants to read."
Translation: the biased stories the community wants to believe are true, make for great justice and the <insert partisan affiliation> way. Oh, and whatever makes money.
</pessimism> - inactive, on 04/06/2009, -0/+7Exactly, since there's no real journalism involved. The majority of what america reads, listens to, and sees is NOT journalism.
- wolfing, on 04/06/2009, -0/+7The problem I see with current 'blog' journalism is that it's unfiltered. With old newspapers, most articles passed through the editor, supervisor, whatever. Most newspapers were careful (some more than others) of backing news with data. More and more I see bloggers just saying whatever the hell they want, many times as 'someone told me that someone told him that...'. In a competition to vomit the news 5 minutes before the other bloggers, there is no backing anything with data, just rumors and false truths. At least with newspapers they had a 24 hour period to review the stories before they went to the public, not anymore.
I think current blogger-style news, after it's tainted enough with false/truth ratio, will give way to a new style of news, maybe a hybrid of old-style journalism in the new online media. I can only hope. - atomicpoet, on 04/06/2009, -1/+7The future of journalism is only getting better. I spend hours on Fark. You can't buy this sort of entertainment.
- Lax32, on 04/06/2009, -1/+6I see problems. One of the benefits of a large and well funded news organization is that they have the capital to go seek out leads and actually do some investigative journalism. I don't see that in this model.
While this whole user funded journalism might sound interesting, I'd really hope I never live to see the day when something like that takes over. While certainly lots of people would argue that this isn't happening today, one of the responsibilities people put on the media is the duty to not only report on what people want to hear, but to uncover news that people didn't know about before. That takes a well capitalized organization. Its not like a story on the broken derivatives market on Wall Street would have broken on that site when the stock market was still at record levels and people could have cared less. I'd rather my media investigate and break the story before it happens rather than have ***** hit the fan and then have everyone on the internet playing expert and trying to figure out why it happened. - DigiDave, on 04/06/2009, -0/+4I totally agree that new forms won't necc. replace old newsrooms as we traditionally know them.
And we have a lot to figure out too. But I think if something new comes in to dominate the market - that is okay, provided it gets the job done in terms of keeping our communities informed.
Rock on. - FuzzplugJones, on 04/06/2009, -0/+4Radically different?
You mean someday, scumbags who call themselves journalists will write things without thinking, "hmm, will Obama still blow me if I write this?" - inactive, on 04/06/2009, -1/+5Yeah, but when you spend 30 minutes on a site like Digg (that a lot of Diggers actually call the future) you get BREAKING news stories that happened 18 hours ago that was reported on ALL the news programs last night. And on other so called "news" sites, you lso get a lot of ridiculously biased ***** from people who think that George Bush personally piloted both planes into the WTC, jumping out in an invisible parachute just before they hit.
You are also comparing it to morning news which is generally more light hearted banter than news. - amprather, on 04/06/2009, -0/+4It's a Kiva.org for journalism.......BRILLIANT!!
- jboitnott, on 04/06/2009, -1/+5The old ways of funding it just aren't working anymore - that's for sure.... just judging by the never ending massive layoffs.
- cmadach, on 04/06/2009, -0/+4The real death of journalism? Self-reflexive, cliche-riddled ***** like this. Everyone needs to stop feeling sorry for the industry (including the industry itself) and produce something people actually want to see/read/hear. Everybody wants to be a pundit and nobody's willing to actually take the risk with some real, relevant reporting. As much as I dislike HuffPost, their investment in investigative journalism has to be applauded.
- whatthefu, on 04/06/2009, -0/+3Journalism isn't about entertainment. It's about informing.
- DigiDave, on 04/06/2009, -1/+4Not to mention spot.us is very much inspired by Digg.
As many know - I've been a long time digger.
On Digg you submit links to articles you like and if it gets enough votes it goes to the front page
On Spot.Us you submit ideas to articles you WANT to see and if it gets enough votes ($) it becomes a reality.
Rock on. - zombie210, on 04/07/2009, -0/+3Lol, ty for that sugarazor, I needed that laugh, and it wasn't at you it was with you. :)
- LastVisibleDog, on 04/06/2009, -0/+3The is a really interesting concept.
But the truth is - journalism died in 2008. This not an anti-Obama or anti-Left statement. The death was a culmination of events and circumstances and all sides contributed (left, right, and in-between). What happened during the Obama election is the the majority of the mainstream media stopped pretending to be journals/reporters/seekers of the truth and became advocates. Like I said - this problem belongs to both sides. Journalism died and it was replaced by advocacy (and determining when advocacy becomes propaganda is really hard) - mycoplasma, on 04/06/2009, -1/+4Wait, are you saying that things will be different in the future?
Preposterous! - monvalley, on 04/06/2009, -1/+4The Web isn't killing journalism; the journalist is the problem. They have become puppets for whichever political party they support and express their own opinions, rather than reporting. The cover-up for friends and attack foes, whether factual or not. They accept, without any investigation, whatever views they happen to believe in, and report as truth. No one trusts them; they are a bad product and bad products don't sell. They can blame the internet, or whatever; but if they want to survive, they should look inward.
- Cojafoji, on 04/06/2009, -0/+3Interesting idea, however, funding individual stories, in the end is fundamentally flawed, as it introduces an unstable element of bias. The more money someone pumps into a story, the farther they can go with it, the farther they can dig, which is exactly what someone may want in some evil little way. The article would be unbias in writing, but bias in backing, just as many papers are today. Fund a journalists trip to a certain place, but not another etc. Just throwing that out there.
- Jimbob200, on 04/06/2009, -0/+3STOP right there.
I won't even read the article.
"...the stories the community wants to read."
Which community is this? Smart people who are concerned about world events and politics in general? Cause that's all that really matters, and I fail to see paying to people to print "what the community wants to read" is going to pay for people to go to China, Zimbabwe, and other countries around the world to report on human rights abuses, corruption, and the like. This idea is a fail. You need real journalists to maintain democracy; of that there is no question. - ventg4fun, on 04/06/2009, -0/+3Interesting concept, to be sure, and admire the innovative concept, but how many donors would pay $2 for one story? I could see maybe paying that for a block of stories, or an entire issue of an online newspaper, but not for just one story. For the print edition, I don't even pay $2 for my own local paper.
- DigiDave, on 04/06/2009, -1/+3Define "real" and "trained."
All the pitches on spot.us come from "real" and "trained" reporters. There... happy? - DigiDave, on 04/06/2009, -1/+3Phase 2.0 of Spot.us will let people fund beats - not just specific stories.
So you fund a beat: "I'll cover city hall for X months"
That reporter can go out and do nothing but hang out in city hall to watch for corruption. We aren't there yet. But that is the goal. - buckrogers1965, on 04/06/2009, -1/+3The thing that I love most about the new journalism is that it has become a dialog instead of a monologue, thanks to the comment section, or to places like digg that allow large numbers of people to discuss topics even if the site has no comments.
The only thing better would be to allow the article itself to be marked up in some way to do fact checking or to refute a statement. - DigiDave, on 04/06/2009, -1/+3Eventually we want to fundraise for beats. So you would give $2 and it would lead to a series of stories to cover city hall.
- Falstaph, on 04/06/2009, -1/+3Wow, a story about potholes in Oakland has ALMOST been funded.
Can't wait to read that one. Be sure to let me know when it's done! I'll be waiting!
Yep, the journalism of the future is awesome. - DigiDave, on 04/06/2009, -1/+3Sarcasm aside: Oakland has an 85 year resurfacing rate for its streets. So yes... this is an issue.
Potholes in Oakland are breaking cars and bikers are getting hurt all the time.
We investigate anything that is important to local communities. Potholes in Oakland might not be important to you - but it is important to people that drive in Oakland. - dannykeene, on 04/07/2009, -0/+2People take whatever they read on the internet as truth. In print journalism, the writer had to have several sources. Print journalism was thought to be trustworthy based on the reputation they made for themselves over the course of time. Now some blogger in his basement with a chip on his shoulder and an agenda carries the same amount of credibility as a mainsteam news institution that actually checks it's sources and backs up it's publications with actual proof.
The future of journalism is misinformation.
Good night and Good luck. - sugarazor, on 04/06/2009, -2/+4Facts are not a dialogue and real journalism is informing people of facts. There's no discussing facts, you can have an opinion on them, but the truth isn't up for debate.
- synapz, on 04/06/2009, -0/+2How can I donate money if I can only expect the journalists to be biased? Journalists typically support state funding because they are "liberal artists" that generally have a hard time finding a job outside of a Barnes and Noble. I think it's unethical to use force against people to fund something that they may not want funded. Very few journalists accept this position.
How can I expect you guys to not be biased? - FuzzplugJones, on 04/06/2009, -0/+1Every time I go to Fark I get frustated because I can't mod down the ***** and the Obamatons, and then I leave.
- harry8227, on 04/07/2009, -0/+1If journalism is going to survive it needs to put out the News, all of it not a biased version of it and it needs to stop telling people what they should think. Basically it neds to tell the old who, what,when,where and why and then shut up (no offense)
- DigiDave, on 04/06/2009, -2/+3We are a nonprofit. So making money isn't the goal.
And we limit how much any one person can donate - so you need a community of people to fund a story.
If you really think a neighborhood of people that want potholes investigated is partisan and bias... well... Then I guess the world is truly a disastrous place. - mdiluzio, on 04/06/2009, -0/+1Is there really a Fark vs. digg argument? I enjoy both sites!
- a2fan, on 04/07/2009, -0/+1@DigiDave - "We are a nonprofit. So making money isn't the goal."
Nonprofits are almost always looking for where their next buck is going to come from -- unless you're one of the lucky few that has an endowment or are independently funded.
I feel my skepticism is well founded. We live in an era where news, and new media are controlled or at least influenced by spin doctors, image consultants, political interest groups ... no matter how small or new a news organization is, or seemingly well-intentioned it might be, I have to wonder who is behind it, where is the funding coming from and what are their motives? - inactive, on 04/06/2009, -1/+2spot.us will be gone by 2011.
- rda1441, on 04/06/2009, -1/+2Has anyone thought that maybe journalism is killing journalism?
Not a whole lot on that playing field worth much these days. - brenisa, on 04/07/2009, -0/+1The whole point of my buying a rag is to find out impartially about something I *don't know* about. Otherwise I would just google it. What consumer is going to rummage through 80 pages of article summaries and overpay for a single one ($20 on the site)? Pass.
This mechanism for paying for journalism looks like what a few bands did to get their albums recorded - paying in advance for a future album recording. Only a few journalists will succeed using this method. Non profits DO use this technique to get grant money, but only a small percentage of people (like 10% or less) who deeply care about the issue will ever respond (if they even heard of it), and when you go to the public at large, you won't be able to sustain that model. In fact, the only way to get the needed publicity to your journalistic cause would be, ironically, the newspaper, as it's one of the most effective local ways to access a large number of people. Journalists do not want to be begging for dimes, it's exhausting. - booststrong, on 04/07/2009, -0/+1Let's start thinking how to adapt to it, sounds really interesting. we are facing real changes
in social interactions among people and the Web has leading the process. - medarby, on 04/07/2009, -0/+1Will there be a rating system for the reporters? Some kind of way to rate someone on balance, facts, depth, etc. is needed. I might give $20 to a well-respected investigative reporter to cover city hall, but not very much to someone unknown.
- Wheelingdude86, on 04/07/2009, -0/+1I like it. Better than what my local town has now.
- Coinspinner, on 04/08/2009, -0/+1Maybe it will be honest in the future then?
After all, when the University of Virginia Medical College announced on 19 April 1974 that a government-funded, peer-reviewed study showed Marijuana cured cancer in mice, no real paper carried the news.
So I'd say that something really needs to change. - DigiDave, on 04/09/2009, -0/+1Nonprofits are looking for money to be sustainable - yes. But even if Spot.Us is a wild crazy success - I won't make more than a living salary off it. ie: I'll never be able to sell this to Google, because nonprofits can't be sold. That's the point I was making.
As for the skepticism - yes, the world is a place filled with spin doctors. Traditionally .0001 percent of the population set the news agenda. They were called "editors" and they were the only ones with a freelance budget. So if you had the right spin doctor - you could convince that .0001 percent of the population and be in the door.
What I want to do is increase the percent of people that make the news. I have faith that the more people who help set the news agenda - the less bias it will be. - buckrogers1965, on 04/09/2009, -0/+1A statement can be true or false. The dialog presenting every side of an issue will allow people to get all the views around a "fact."
- DigiDave, on 04/09/2009, -0/+1You are a member of the community. Don't you trust yourself?
Who are "real journalist."
I'm amazed that you are actively a part of this community - which you are part of to help surface good news, and yet you wouldn't trust the larger community to do the same... because... you say it is "not real."
That makes no sense. -
Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is