What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
147 Comments
- XtheXlanternX, on 03/21/2009, -6/+40This article is so wrong it is appalling. The other day in the New York Times there was an editorial about how the Internet is such a terrible place to get news. On the Internet, people don't leaf through or skim all the articles, they pick only the ones they want to read. On the Internet, you can choose from reading articles from this political point of view or that one (liberal or conservative slants). On the Internet, you can go to sites like the Huffington Post or (insert conservative website here I don't know any) and get a full serving of the "news" but it is ideologically driven. People are driven to seek out news articles that agree and reinforce their own views, further polarizing themselves.
This is the Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/opinion/19kristo ...
A quote from it: "That’s because there’s pretty good evidence that we generally don’t truly want good information — but rather information that confirms our prejudices. We may believe intellectually in the clash of opinions, but in practice we like to embed ourselves in the reassuring womb of an echo chamber." - hbyrne, on 03/20/2009, -5/+35Interesting piece, and while I buy into the thesis that the medium of the Internet offers advantages over print, in so many ways, I think it's a stretch to say that Internet journalism is currently of equal or better quality than that produced by newspapers.
- inactive, on 03/21/2009, -15/+42This is why we don't need mainstream newspapers and fake cable news...
America builds more prisons than schools
America builds more prisons than ANY OTHER COUNTRY per capita.
America imprisons more of their citizens for non violent crimes than ANY OTHER COUNTRY per capita.
America manufactures and exports more weapons than ANY OTHER COUNTRY.
US "news" topics last month...
Aretha may lose her Detroit mansion
Olympic gold medalist makes fashion blunder
New juicy pics of Senator's whore
Hulk Hogan's wife files for divorce
Polar Bear cubs are doing well
Cat survives 3 weeks crossing ocean
Large men in spandex die due to steriod abuse
Runaway bride's former groom reportedly marries another woman
Buddhist dog prays for worldly desires
Camels line up for Gulf beauty contest
Soldier tosses puppy
Guy sleeping at Obama speech
Hillary's fake country accent
Pitbulls get second chance
Lindsay Lohan's drug problems
Redneck Skank still missing in Aruba
Martha Stewart, Back in Action
Duke Lacrosse lawsuit
Anna Nicole's corpse
ACLU courting Pedophiles
Missing blond, blue-eyed British baby
Shark and Alligator attacks on the rise in Florida
McDonald's courting designers for hipper uniforms
Heath Ledger, still dead - Murfree, on 03/21/2009, -3/+14Her argument is that the Web will pick up where newspapers leave off. Which might be the case someday. But right now, the business model for Web site advertising isn't nearly as robust and doesn't generate the revenue that print advertising does for newspapers. A small local daily is likely to have about 30 employees. How many Web sites do you know of in your town that employ that many or more people. Now consider a mid-market daily with 300-500 employees. It takes a lot of revenue to employ that many people.
Now also consider how many people are employed by these papers that are actually out there finding things out. Until Web sites are able to generate enough revenue to employ significant numbers of reporters there could be a news gathering gap.
Mostly what is happening now is newspapers with significant debt loads are going under. The rest will survive and slowly transition smoothly as the business model pans out. - Rescue7, on 03/21/2009, -5/+14I don't know, as much as I love for things to modernize. It's also kind of sad to see them go.
Sure there a lot of benefits of it being online. But I rather just have my big piece of paper with a cup of coffee. I use my computer too much already. - clarkd, on 03/21/2009, -4/+13Well I actually just signed up for the Thursday/Sunday subscription of the local paper by me just to try out the newspaper experience (I haven't had a paper delivered to my home in at least 10 years, and I only cared about the sunday comics back then), and I was pleasantly surprised. It was nice to have a hard-copy of the news even if it was a little older than what the web could provide, but it also provided stories I wouldn't normally have read/found on the web. Plus the ability to get away from the digital world was a definite plus since I spend an unhealthy amount of time in front of the computer. Another thing I noticed was that the stories were much less biased as well (obviously key facts could have been left out, but it was all much nicer than the crap that's on the web). It seems that since a newspaper has to sell to everyone they try to avoid the typical mud slinging that is so commonplace in places like huffington and the dredge report, and it was nice to read an article that was devoid of snide remarks. Finally, it was nice to read Dilbert and Get Fuzzy again and eat my morning cereal in the morning sunshine.
That all said, I actually think the newspaper has a place in the world that digital media can never touch, and this is coming from a 24 year old CS grad. I honestly think that the people who bash the local paper should try it before doing so. - ColBuendia71, on 03/21/2009, -3/+11Yes, because all of those things were on the front page of the New York Times and Washington Post, both of which have never carried an editorial criticizing the number of American prisoners. Meanwhile web news outlets gained access to classified documents containing first-hand accounts of acts of American torture.
Oh wait, sorry. Traditional news outlets got that important story out there while the main page of the Huffington Post, arguably the most prestigious web only news source, gives in-depth coverage of a celebrity funeral.
I know that considering the subtle nature of reality is difficult, and it's much easier to just find a convenient opinion and slosh it all over the walls, but I can assure that it's more rewarding for you, not to mention everyone else if you learn to think in terms beyond broad, prepackaged opinions. I think that goes for most of Digg, really. But for some reason I just can't stop reading the comments... - Seal, on 03/21/2009, -0/+8It isn't the loss of the medium which is the big deal with the loss of the newspaper - it's the loss of the journalists and of the local focus. Online news media isn't profitable like newspaper once was. That's why you have this aggregation, and that's why these journalists are losing their jobs. With this aggregation, the most you'll have on a local level is some crap story about a dog that rescued a kid. Stuff that has an appeal to more than just the community and thus generates revenue, but that really isn't news.
Real journalism will be lost. And that's the problem. If there's corruption in the city hall, or a problem with the local water - whose going to report it? It's outside the focus of a national news story, and outside the interests of the other journalistic organizations that have bigger fish to fry.
And that's the tragedy with the loss of the newspaper. Who needs freedom of the press when there is no press in the first place? - tonmil, on 03/21/2009, -0/+6The horse and carriage has been around for hundreds maybe thousands of years.
- BuzzFriendly, on 03/21/2009, -5/+11Why not bail them out? The government doesn't have any problem bailing out other industries that have no business being in business. It's isn't like anyone has a problem with trillions in debt. Oh well at least the printers can get lifetime work with the treasury printing more money that we don't have.
- Seal, on 03/21/2009, -0/+6Why is this guy being dug down?
He has a pretty good point. You may not agree with it, but it certainly isn't trolling. - Bicep, on 03/20/2009, -6/+11With the advent of so much news being web-available and more people carrying Linux netbooks than ever before, I'm not surprised that some newspapers are stopping print. I saw a television show about this the other day and the commentator, I thought, hit the nail on the head.... Newspapers don't need to cease to exist, they just need to improve their delivery/business models to adapt with the technological movement. I think we'll see fewer newspapers in print offset by more web presence... but I also don't think newspapers will cease altogether. Really what the newspapers should do is aggregate more newspapers into a single newspaper print. I'd hate to see printed new disappear altogether..but the current model of printing so many different papers for a small geographic area is bound to change.
- majortom1981, on 03/21/2009, -5/+10Do you guys realise that as of right now most articles even from internet sources come from the associated press ? So what would happen if they die?
- Depthfunction, on 03/21/2009, -0/+5Yeah, and candles and torches have been around a lot longer than that. You know those incandescent light bulbs? They're just a fad.
- cloudsrival, on 03/21/2009, -0/+5Seal, you have hit the real issue here - the problem here is MUCH greater than the loss of the print medium, but the loss of the ability to do indepth journalism:
internet advertising can't raise enough money to support a journalist going 6-months undercover to expose government corruption, or sponsor a team to investigate the long-term affects of policies and decisions, or do any real investigative journalism. We cannot have a democracy without a media, without a media that has the time and resources to dive deep and expose and check what the government is going - the internet news sources, not only are they mostly reactions to what the mainstream media (mostly newspapers and related news magazines), but the 'news' they give is flat and obvious and meaningless.
Without newspapers, and the type of media and journalism they are known for, our democracy becomes much less unbalanced, and one more check on the government (at ALL levels - local and national) disappears forever. - ridd1e, on 03/21/2009, -5/+10People need journalism, not newspapers.
- jgoodri1, on 03/21/2009, -0/+5Thanks, Seal, you said it. Having lost my job at a major newspaper and witnessed hundred of my co-workers lose their jobs as well, I can only ask: where is "news" coming from now? Will "news" eventually just become what Joe Blow writes in his completely non-biased and wholly accurate blog? Isn't it sad to say that "you can't trust the media" when the sources from which one garners his news aren't even legitimate sources to begin with?
- Cojafoji, on 03/21/2009, -2/+6I want to agree in the worst way, but coming out of school with a degree in Journalism in the next two years is gonna suck with all the newspapers that close, and are NOT featured solely on the web...
- diggdat, on 03/21/2009, -1/+5
There are not any Town Criers any more either...Next. - iJessicaRabbit, on 03/21/2009, -0/+4I couldn't agree more. Every Sunday I take a break and have breakfast, coffee and read a newspaper. Nothing can beat the hands on feeling of a newspaper.
- mahadiga, on 03/21/2009, -0/+4Only 1% of world's total population is ONLINE.
Newspapers are catering remaining 99% - CoD4, on 03/21/2009, -4/+8I'm gonna get the boot any day now, we used to get a ***** of ads to do, but over the 6 months, the ads are declining at a dangerous rate.
A few reporters got laid off and they've also cut days from some long time employees. I'm gonna have to go into something totally different it seems. There are too many web designers out there these days - Rdeck, on 03/21/2009, -0/+4I am a former newsman who spent his life working for newspapers. I mourn their loss.
But what Kristof ignores is the fact that the corporate media hasn't given us a decent range of facts and opinion.
The fact that they cheered us on to the Iraq war, and kept us in the dark about the state of our economy, is proof enough that they have not served us well and their demise in their present form is not a loss to democracy and a well-informed citizenry. - NomortaL1, on 03/21/2009, -2/+6you got it exactly right my friend! i told this to my co-worker the other day. he didnt understand why news networks put spin on the news.
i told him its because a lot of people want their news WITH a slant on it. consciously or unconsciously so, people are driven to news they enjoy reading. - JustinCase18, on 03/22/2009, -0/+4The newsprint industry not only replants its trees, but their harvest is controlled. Those huge forest fires you read about aren't in their woods. Complaining about their carbon footprint is like complaining about corn, soy or rice growers destroying vegetation.
However, sloppy environmental research such as yours will no doubt nail the coffin shut on the newspaper industry quicker than the financial aspects. So if that's your REAL motive, keep up the ignorance. - kward711, on 03/21/2009, -2/+6my dad, who is nearing retirement, has been working for print for 20 years. He worked for Newsday, then went on to TIME who fired him 2 years ago as part of some massive layoffs in his department, rehired him in a different department and then fired him again due to the recession. Now he's working at another magazine company who keeps announcing more and more layoffs. The only problem is that he's been doing the same thing for several years now and he isn't tech savy and has such a hard time adapting to new technology and now he's at risk for losing his job and won't be able to retire for several years now.
- FDDIcent, on 03/21/2009, -3/+7Yeah but there's still loads of people who work for newspapers who will lose their jobs. Like my dad, he's a 55 year old sport's photographer who now has to bust his ass to learn video and programs like final cut pro just so he can remain relevant until he can afford to retire. I mean I understand it's the natural progression of technology, but for those in the industry it sucks.
- Grummond, on 03/22/2009, -0/+4That used to be true, but today the trees are replanted in the same rate as they are harvested.
If anything, not using paper will lead to LESS trees, since there will be no reason to sustain the current "tree farms" the paper industry uses. - chops76, on 03/21/2009, -1/+5Now we know who told us how babby is formed...
- sgerwel1985, on 03/21/2009, -0/+4One of the biggest reasons print media is going out of business is because of the cost associated with it, in comparison to the number of paper subscribers. I for one do not get papers sent to my house because of the local political slant/agenda they all have.
Maybe if the print media offered a non-slanted/biased opinion, i'd be more inclined to get their stuff... I dream way too much these days. - WoollyMittens, on 03/21/2009, -1/+4It's good nor bad. Its inevitable.
From horses to cars. From ledgers to spreadsheets. From town cryer to radio. Why would newspapers be immune to this? - tonmil, on 03/21/2009, -0/+3You are so right. Let the good journalists do journalism on paper, on TV or on-line and let the people decide which source is worthy.
- clarkd, on 03/21/2009, -2/+5I get it!!! The gs stands for "going sour"
- Oracle95, on 03/23/2009, -0/+3"Newspapers gobble up hectares of forest evey day."
If ignorance were bliss, you'd be down right ephoric right now. No need for smoking pot for you.
If the newsprint industry stopped harvesting trees and replanting them, the land would be used for something else and the trees wouldn't be replaced. You can believe whatever garbage you choose but there's no logic to an industry not replenishing its resources. Its like any other agricultural business. - Qwertie, on 03/21/2009, -0/+3Because basic problems in society aren't "news" because they aren't new. Also, they don't involve celebrities. Except the ones going to jail, which on rare occasions might make a journalist point out interesting facts like those you mentioned.
- Grummond, on 03/22/2009, -0/+3By dubious websites, i mean the ones you're reading, telling you planting trees to use them in the paper industry is bad.
- Blitzenn, on 03/21/2009, -1/+4Actually we did try to save the typewriter. We kept stuffing dollars into outdated factories, like Smith Corona until someone actually walked up and physically slapped the politicians in the face and made them wake up.
What a way to really waste money. - adiggityam, on 03/21/2009, -0/+3Why not turn them into endowed non-profit institutions instead:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/opinion/28swense ... - JustinCase18, on 03/22/2009, -0/+3There's some irony that an SAP advertisement preceded the article. The newspaper industry forced many of its vendors to adopt SAP in order to maintain a business relationship. With 4x the projected started up cost, a bloated inventory system and an inability to ship their products in a timely manner due to software problems, SAP is singlehandedly putting many of the newspaper industry's vendors into bankrupcy. I can only wonder if it isn't adding the same financial burden onto the newspaper industry itself.
- Depthfunction, on 03/21/2009, -0/+3Do you really want the government to take control of newspapers? Because that's what would happen in govt bailouts.
- jsffive, on 03/21/2009, -1/+4A newspaper guy, shilling for newspapers? What a surprise.
You want to tell me how we got lied into a war again?
How about the WMD fiasco? - carlosos, on 03/21/2009, -1/+4There are many industries that are changing and in almost all of them you have to keep learning (and not all of them the "fault" of technology). In some industries it is more common than others.
- Grummond, on 03/22/2009, -1/+4-"gobble up hectares of forest"...ummm no.
Trees are replanted at the same rate as they are harvested, if anything going paperless will leave us with less trees, since they will have no reason to replant the trees meant for the paper business.
-"Any single newspaper provides one perspective only."
I actually like it that way. Instead of digging through dozens of websites, to find out what REALLY happened, I like having a trusted newspaper serving me the jist of a story. Sifting through all these dubious websites, and having to filter out the irrelevant information just leaves me stressed out.
And yes, those newspapers do exist. - peaceninja, on 03/21/2009, -0/+3I'm outraged! How could the runaway bride's former groom just out and marry another woman already?
- JustinCase18, on 03/22/2009, -0/+3In order to say you use soy based inks, the inks must contain a minimum of 30% soy (as required by the Soy Bean Growers Association). The balance is pigment (10-30%, depending on the color), clay (up to 20%), resin (10-15%) and some mineral oil. The only inks that still use petroleum oil is the black and that's due to cost factors. (If our cars ran on soy oil, we'd be paying closer to $6 a gallon.)
Silver covery is becoming a thing of the past due to the newspapers being forced into purchasing CTP processors. (Computer to plate). The "forced" is due to scarcity in replacement parts. This is one reason why the newspapers are going belly up. As their profits plummit, they are being forced to invest millions of dollars in new equipment in order to keep up with environmental regulations. - ratherstupid, on 03/21/2009, -1/+4I think you underestimate the concept of "free".
- JustinCase18, on 03/22/2009, -0/+2and when an emergency hits your local area and takes out the power, do you reach for a light bulb or light up some candles?
- rxbudian, on 03/21/2009, -0/+2Unless government can guarantee that it will never control access to the internet and guarantee Net Neutrality and also provide free online access to the internet, then it is OK.
Should most newspapers die and move online, there will be threat of censorship by the government and the ISP.
moreover the access to news become more restricted to only the ones with means (computer and internet access) and can only be accessed by whomever has control over the computer. That means the poorer have less chance of getting ahead than the richer. - ascan212, on 03/21/2009, -0/+2 ...... besides I f'ing hate the black crap that papers leave on your hands!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- XtheXlanternX, on 03/21/2009, -0/+2When you read the newspaper, you have articles from many points of view about many different subjects. Most people have to skim the articles to figure out what they want to skip, but perhaps you have some sort of prescience. Also, a lot of people read the newspaper from front to back still. Most people only care about a couple issues and the newspaper helps to educate them on what is going on in the world. If information seeking is an active process, then most people would not read about more than their local news and maybe some US national news. These same people would at least glean over most articles when handed to them in print format to read over a cup of coffee each morning.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 150 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is