What is Digg?94 Comments
- jtingley, on 10/20/2007, -3/+87The sad how many people truly think that the mainstream news is impartial and cannot lie.
- TheSavant, on 10/20/2007, -3/+47Most Americans.
- superspud, on 10/10/2007, -2/+38This is why is support the UK TV license and the BBC. The BBC answers to no one but the license payer; not the government, not Big Media or any other outside organisation.
They are forced by their Royal Charter to honestly report the news, and if they fail in that, you can bet your bottom dollar, there will be a *****-storm, usually fueled by them reporting about themselves. Anyone in the UK remember the Hutton report? The BBC nearly killed themselves reporting their wrong doings! And those faked phone-in competitions; the BBC was the only broadcaster to broadcast in-depth reports about themselves. - darksheer, on 10/10/2007, -5/+38Why does it have to be "right wing propoganda?" Why can't it be left wing propoganda? (of which, there is also PLENTY). That's where this video falls flat--it attempts make it a one-sided problem where anyone with a reasonably sharp pair of eyes can see that it comes from both sides.
- mbelleghem, on 10/10/2007, -2/+25Pretty basic - but then again that photo of Rumsfeld with Saddam was, too. Good to get this stuff out there so that more and more people are able to get their head around how this world works.
To think that in high school I had so much difficulty grasping the idea that news media could be biased when they were 'just reporting what happened'. *shudder* - biohzrd, on 10/10/2007, -9/+31While the core message of this movie could have been more clearly expended upon, and is an important one, this movie was extremely poorly executed.
- SinisterBunni, on 10/10/2007, -5/+21I TOTALLY BELEIVE THAT!!! You mean CEO's and other corporate execs would lie and try to exploit people? PISHAW I say. Why, they are the salt of the earth, real good joes. A big corporate CEO would never steal millions of dollars or try to skirt the law. After all, they know it is wrong to do that.
ROFFL... I can't even keep a strait face when I say that on a keyboard. - 11familyguy11, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19The message that this is trying to give is important and correct, however, the video itself is very short and lacks sources and solid evidence.
- chris8535, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13As someone who works in the industry, this is pretty much wrong. The few times an editor kills a story for non-journalistic reasons its not because a company has complained.
No... it is because he knows the audience will not care or does not want to hear it.
This video tries to shift the blame from audiences that view the television experience as a "shut off your brain" activity. While it is convenient to blame the "big scary right wing business men", its not necessarily true. - BevansDesign, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13There's a whole series of these videos, and they all seem to have gotten to the top of Digg at one time or another, which really baffles me. They're shallow, boring, and the only thing they have going for them is their message.
I'd love to see a real documentary on this sort of subject. - vwvan, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14Stewart - the only name to trust in news.
- mnky9800n, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12It's sad how many people think that nonmainstream news outlest are impartial. How many people do you know that get all of their information from crooks and liars and rawstory?
- yoshimaroka, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Are you kidding me? Global warming not talked about? The exception is Fox News, but otherwise it's everywhere and a huge topic compared to just 5 years ago.
There is plenty of Neocon propaganda: nation building, policing the world…etc. It's the same as left wing propaganda. They both want bigger government to 'guide' us in life. - forku, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11wow, tell me something I DON"T know
- nikkesen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Limiting yourself to a single news source limits your ability to have access to all the details. Everyone has an agenda; everyone has something they want to push.
- synarchy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Thanks. Just what I was thinking, and I am glad someone got it posted near the top. I completely agree with the premise, but started rolling my eyes with the whole "right wing" stuff.
“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one perhaps of the Right, and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy…. [E]ither party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same policies.”
--- Carroll Quigley, 1966 (http://tinyurl.com/23ccgl) - gryphonauto, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Starts off typical anti-media (stuff most of us know), but then diverts into liberal propaganda. Clever but not clever enough.
- satx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I think our young Webster meant *expound.*
- Schmidtopolis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6A Dire Strait face?
- mancat, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9Oh, this guy again. The guy who doesn't watch TV is making documentaries about how TV news works. I thought he didn't watch it?
Besides, his bias is pretty obvious. Only "right-wingers" persuade and bribe the media to broadcast their agenda? Please... - dudefather, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Digg? neutral? where people commonly sensationalise stories to get the front page using vague facts and blogspam? where users wont even look at a story before a opinion is decided, just because they don't like 'the pigs'?
- tacroy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I can't speak to national news. But in local news this is not even close to correct. Editors and directors would grab onto anything that made the promo guy happy and would pull in more viewers. We were all very left leaning but the good ones didn't let it bias them. There wasn't a single time that a "corporate" interest tried to interfere.
If anything the real problem with local news is that the public has too MUCH influence on the content. Our new director would run or not run a story based on if it pissed off the viewing public (thus losing market share, thus losing ad dollars) If big business tried to buy us out then that would be a HUGE story, cause class warfare = viewers and viewers = money. - tcpip4lyfe, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Baby eels are called elvers.
- UbIwerks, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5This movie is great and all, and I believe it's telling the truth. Unfortunately, it backs itself up with nothing. Just how they're complaining about mainstream news pushing their bias, how are we to know if they're doing the exact same thing?
Please give us some examples of mainstream media abusing their power, not just America + Russia = COLD WAR! - winmywii, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6I don't know why theya re getting burried. There have been studies that show daily show viewers are more aware of current events than fox news viewers.
- jmkiii, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6No love for Colbert?
- topace3000, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Hahaha.. addictive? Who the ***** is addicted to watching the news?
- dudefather, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4interesting enough video, makes you wonder how you could indeed create a completely impartial news source, neither too right wing or left wing, there will always be be a need to select stories to either sell more newspapers, get higher TV ratings, or please the sponsors. Even the almighty internet is susceptible to this (Especially Digg, given that stories have to be popular to reach the front page, rather than 'important').
maybe condensing every important issue of the day in the world is an almost impossible task, but do we REALLY need to know what happened to Maddy? - darksheer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Politicians ALL want bigger government and corporate collusion--they just disagree on how to make that happen.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You fail at science!
- jmkiii, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5 ex·pend (ĭk-spĕnd') pronunciation
tr.v., -pend·ed, -pend·ing, -pends.
1. To lay out; spend: expending tax revenues on government operations. See synonyms at spend.
2. To use up; consume: “Every effort seemed to expend her spirit's force” (George Meredith).
[Middle English expenden, from Latin expendere, to pay out : ex-, ex- + pendere, to weigh.]
They did what on the message? - TheTruth1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2A very one-sided explanation if you ask me. This could be categorized as propaganda as well as any right leaning video. I would argue that the media jumps at almost every chance it can to jump on the left wing bandwagon, with the exception of Fox news and talk radio.
- sexybobo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Daily show is made by comedy central who is owned by viacom who is owned by National Amusements the same people that own cbs.
So how exactly are they any different then fox as far as them being owned by a huge media group?
They just have a different agenda to push than fox. - DiscoLando, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4The best thing my wife and I ever did was disconnect the cable and disavow television. What's surprising is how little we've missed it... especially my wife who was sure her life was going go end once she couldn't watch Heroes anymore.
But you know what? We have more sex. We read more. We do more interactive things together. The quality of our lives has gone up dramatically. - brandonace, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3That was a wast of 5min's of my life I would like them back please
- Boomkin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Care to back up your claim that climate change science is "junk science"? From what I've seen, it's the skeptics that use junk science.
And I still find it odd that professed "conservatives" are so against conserving the world's resources. Beyond that, however, I don't see what liberal vs. conservative has to do with the climate change debate. The distinction is mostly propaganda, imo. - Modulo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2it ain't so. not for a while now.
- vinecrawler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2good idea. Disconnect the tv and watch youtube/5min videos instead.
- mlvassallo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Bias is everywhere. Journalism 101.
- wonko33, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Are you anti-American or something? ;)
- andycr512, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2So you're saying the video on partiality was partial? How ironic.
- satx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Just the choice of what to show is bias in and of itself.
- buckrogers1965, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The republicans were in 100% charge for a couple of years. I didn't see my fellow republicans reduce government, not even a little bit. In fact, Bush lead the republican congress back into the same failed deficit spending and massive government growth of the Regan era.
- Malakin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Their "How Television Works" is also good:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uBm9ZyIg3I0 - buckrogers1965, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3It's right wing because it is large corporations colluding with big government. Don't think there are a lot of hippies or communists involved in that.
- jamcrackers, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4If any of you have ever seen Euronews, you know that there is very little bias involved in their programming. Basically they have various segments that run throughout the day that include "No Comment" in which they simply show a few minutes of footage without any commentary [bias]. If only we could have something like that here...
- zebbie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1People that dont have the internet?
- UltimateFerg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think you have missed the point of the British TV licence somewhat... It entitles everyone to an independent and impartial source of news and information, free from the political and economic whims of sponsors. Ever visited the BBC's website lately? Maybe you should... it has an interesting page about its purpose, here... http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/purpose/
- Cayfox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think you're missing the point. Corporate media's agenda is inherently right-wing - after all, this protects and furthers their interests, where the left's views are likely to oppose and criticise them. The media don't have to bribe anyone to tell the side the story that suits them best - they have the luxury of being able to just tell it.
However, I do take your point that one network might actively support a Democratic candidate and give his Republican opponent a bad rap. Is this indicative of a biased worldview, or is it perhaps just catering to a demographic? News is entertainment, and there is clearly a market for news aimed at people of a liberal persuasion.
However, mainstream politics is seldom critical of the whole idea of private media. If you want to hear the voice of the 'real' left in America, you still pretty much have to tune in to public access radio in the small hours of the morning! -
Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is