Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Ninure da Hippie
160 Followers
The Oddfather
1 Followers
Professional Photographer
574 Followers
Cass Anderson
15054 Followers
JustSayNoPartyFeb 10, 2011
"smart, un-predictable, non-partisan news is gaining market share because it stands out from the pack."
I so hope this is true. It's sad that we live in a time when 'non-partisan' news got pushed to the back burner. None-partisan news now makes a station stand out from the pack. One day, I'd love for many americans to stop being so easily lead. The 'shock jock' like shows that go in to a frothing frenzy every time a Dem becomes president is just very very old. He's a SOCIALIST. Run for your lives. He's going to destroy Amurika.
sloppyjoes7Feb 10, 2011
There is no such thing as "non-partisan news."
Some news comes close. ABC, NBC, and CBS are liberal, but not extremely biased. Newsweek and NY Times are clearly liberal. MSNBC is unapologetically liberal.
None of this should be surprising, as 85%-95% of reporters vote for Democrats.
And along comes Fox. The first non-liberal news station in decades. And it's called "right-wing" simply because it isn't liberal. It's especially funny because Fox is MUCH more balanced than MSNBC and a few of the other so-called news organizations.
In my opinion, a little balance is a good thing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chomskyknows2Feb 10, 2011
A few selections from (I don't have time to list everything) FoxNews:
- Obama's "terrorist fist bump"
- "Sharia Law is taking over America."
Fair & Balanced? are you an idiot?
conservative_zombieFeb 10, 2011
Just out of curiosity, where do you get your "fair and balanced"?
I try not to get all my news from one source, or for that matter one media. I'm more than willing to watch an hour of Fox or MSNBC, knowing that I don't have to blindly accept what is presented.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
vectorbFeb 10, 2011
"I'm more than willing to watch an hour of Fox or MSNBC, knowing that I don't have to blindly accept what is presented."
Sadly, you sir, are in the minority of FoxNews viewers. (I focus on Fox viewers as they are the larges share of the "news" viewing audience)
thestooge1Feb 10, 2011
"Sadly, you sir, are in the minority of FoxNews viewers. (I focus on Fox viewers as they are the larges share of the "news" viewing audience)"
Really Vectorb? Where are you getting this data? I would guess you are pulling it our of your ass.
Show me a "news" organization that doesn't have some sort of slant either right or left. Why is Fox so much worse because they have a right slant?
You can go look through the comments on Digg and you will find that it is slanted as well...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyFeb 10, 2011
Vector, I agree with you. Many Fox news viewers most likely would not dare listen to a 'liberal' course. And, I believe stooge's comment below is 'off base'. Do most news sources have a bias? Of course. Do I dislike FOX for being slanted to the right? Not really. I still read articles in the Wall Street Journal. However, there is clearly a matter of degree here. And, Fox is 'way right' with a good deal of 'rebel rousing'. That's why I don't like Fox.
ikorkyiFeb 10, 2011
BUT NO ONE ELSE SAYS THEY ARE FAIR AND BALANCED AND PUT IT ALL OVER THE STATION INCLUDING IN THE LOGO THAT IS ON EVERYTHING.
/yelling
norman619Feb 10, 2011
CNN used to say something similar. If you ignore the political opinion shows and just watch the actual news broadcasts on these networks you will find they are are all pretty much the same. Anyone here remember what CNN used to be like years ago? Cable news networks remind me of MTV. MTV used to be all about music videos. If you watch it now it's mostly garbage shows with the occasional music video. Cable news is the same thing now. They are filled with opinion shows with an occasional real news broadcast.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ikorkyiFeb 11, 2011
what news?
there is no news, there is ONLY opinion
FOX has more decent "news" than FOX NEWS
norman619Feb 10, 2011
I can make up a few quotes and claim they came from a NEWS source as well. If Beck, Olbermann, or any of the others said it then it means nothing. They are paid to share their OPINION on the news not be unbiased.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sloppyjoes7Feb 10, 2011
You know, I've never stooped to quoting Olbermann as proof that MSNBC is a left-wing nuthouse. I personally realize that such an argument is dishonest.
However, the left will never hesitate to quote Beck as evidence that Fox is biased. When Beck is NOT part of Fox NEWS. He's an opinionist with a time slot on the channel.
norman619Feb 10, 2011
All you can do is laugh at the BS arguments they throw at us.
Closed AccountFeb 10, 2011
The problem is, Beck doesn't believe his s**t. He is doing this for money and money alone. Remember that Olberman was one of the first to report against Bush & Co. He was going against the grain. Most everyone was lockstep on the war. This is a person who cares and genuinely believes what he was doing. Doing what Beck is doing is easy. He just needs to make up s**t.
sloppyjoes7Feb 10, 2011
offonoffonoff,
Beck believes what he says, just like Olbermann believes what he says.
And Olbermann wasn't "going against the grain." The liberal media has opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. They haven't shut up about missing WMDs for 8 years!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
norman619Feb 10, 2011
off:
Do you know Beck personally or are you somehow able to read his mind? How do you KNOW Beck doesn't believe what he says? It actually is possible to say what you mean AND make great money doing so.
ncmusicFeb 10, 2011
What if I said Fox News claims that playing a video game will make you a rapist? Even though they got comments from experts to the contrary that they didn't include in the story.
norman619Feb 10, 2011
ncmusic:
I would ask you for proof.
dustbunny52Feb 11, 2011
MSNBC has never declared themselves to be "Fair and Balanced". FOX has declared themselves to be this. Yet, even those that are FOX fans all declare that FOX has a slant to the right. Therefore, FOX is lying up front about what they are trying to do for the American public. Change the slogan. How about "The View from the Right" or "What Real Republicans Think"?
ncmusicFeb 11, 2011
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107628-Fox-News-Says-Bulletstorm-Could-Make-You-a-Rapist
sloppyjoes7Feb 10, 2011
Anecdotes prove nothing.
If this were an anecdote war, I could give hundreds or thousands of examples of liberal news stations providing biased information. However, it would also be pointless.
You have to stand back and look at the outlet as a whole. You also have to divorce opinionists from news. If Olbermann or Beck are speaking as opinionists, you cannot include them when studying the bias of a news station.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spider_manFeb 11, 2011
Where again did he use the phrase "Fair and balanced"?
Oh that's right he didn't.
JustSayNoPartyFeb 10, 2011
FOX is much more balanced than MSNBC? That sounds like a 'biased' perspective. Heck, MSNBC doesn't even devote itself to just news airing Lockedup and other programs.
Of course there are 'degrees' of bias. I don't like extreme bias from either side. And yes, FOX is very biased (not fair and balanced). These days, conservative talk dominates the radio airwaves. I don't think conservative talk is being slighted.
Let's not balance 'extreme left wing views' with 'extreme right wing views'. I'd prefer sources that at least attempt to be balanced to be the most popular.
sloppyjoes7Feb 10, 2011
Fox isn't "extreme" except to an extremist.
JustSayNoPartyFeb 10, 2011
I'm far from an extremist.
sloppyjoes7Feb 10, 2011
If you actually believe that Fox is "extreme right wing" then you are an extremist. You might be a left-winger, or someone from a different culture, but you're far from the norm for an American.
Fox News is very fair. They lean right sometimes, but are generally non-partisan. Fox News Channel also has time slots with opinionists, and these commentators are usually conservative. Hannity, for example, is a mainstream conservative.
Now, MSNBC is much less balanced. They actually made Olbermann an anchor. This would be like Fox making Beck an anchor.
Here's a quick test: Do you believe that Olberman is as left-wing as Beck is right-wing?
Followup: Do you think Maddow is as liberal as Limbaugh is conservative?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ncmusicFeb 10, 2011
Maddow's approach to debate it so completely antithetical to Limbaugh's it's hard for me to make any sort of comparison between the two. I guess they both use words. Maddow to me tends to use research and other things to make her arguments, but you might say the same thing about Beck, though I would disagree with more of his interpretations, esp since he invokes Godwin's law all too often.
bookantFeb 11, 2011
"And yes, FOX is very biased (not fair and balanced)."
Actually, FOX is not biased at all.
"Bias" implies a failure to achieve objectivity, usually unintentional or unconscious. "Bias" might describe a news reporter, network, judge, cop, whatever, who sets out trying to be professionally detached and objective but is nevertheless influenced by personal beliefs and feelings that ruin that objectivity.
To say that FOX is "biased" is like saying the advertising department at the McDonald's is "biased" against Burger King. It's not "bias" if the entire purpose of the organization is to spread and promote a specfic message, product, 'brand,' or (in the case of politics) ideology or party. In the business world this is just called advertising.
In the media, there's a specialized term for an organization that performs political "advertising" while simultaneously trying to hide their real nature with exaggerated claims of false objectivity and "balance." That's propaganda. It's an entirely different thing from bias.
A news organization can by biased; FOX is not a news organiztion, it's a propaganda organization for the GOP.
dagamer34Feb 10, 2011
The only thing fox balances is that for all of the "normal" news sources out there (and there are a lot), Fox combines together to be equally crazy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shwaavayFeb 10, 2011
I think FOX did start out much more balanced and it is what gave them their market share. Then they realized their viewers were mostly conservatives and they started tilting more and more to the right. Like how Hannity and Combs went to just Hannity.
sloppyjoes7Feb 10, 2011
Fox News is an organization that provides NEWS. Now, the Fox News channel isn't 100% news. It also has OPINION.
So, it is stupid and pointless to bring up Hannity when discussing Fox News. He's opinion, not news.
Just like Olbermann was opinion. Except, for a while, he was also an anchor for MSNBC. This proved that MSNBC is unashamedly liberal.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mtduff421Feb 10, 2011
How does Olbermann being an anchor before moving to a commentary position denigrate MSNBC? Were his actions as an anchor outlandishly liberal? Does changing roles at a news organization from news to opinion somehow diminish the job one has done on the news side?
sloppyjoes7Feb 10, 2011
"Were his actions as an anchor outlandishly liberal? "
From what I saw, yes. Now, I admit, he did act MUCH more professional as an anchor. However, he refused to keep his strongly-liberal opinion out of the news. Around when he was fired (or whatever happened - I don't remember), he ranted for a few minutes on a subject with utter bias.
MSNBC, if I remember, did admonish him. As they should have.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shwaavayFeb 10, 2011
But having balanced opinions goes a long way to fostering a climate of balance. I think FOX used to do this, but they stopped when they realized their core audience preferred conservative bias.
usarugulaFeb 10, 2011
"ABC, NBC, and CBS are liberal, but not extremely biased"
You might find this hard to believe, but ABC, NBC, and CBS report news that both sides do not like. News that you do not like is not "liberal", it's called non-bias.
sloppyjoes7Feb 10, 2011
I'm logical and impassive. I'm not swayed by anecdotes. I am only impressed by data.
The data prove that most news outlets in the US are liberal-leaning. That is, they tend to be friendly to liberals, and hostile to conservatives.
And, frankly, I'm often surprised that so many people don't realize this clear, obvious fact.
JustSayNoPartyFeb 10, 2011
If you are truly impressed by data, you may not want to state that 'data' proves anything.
There is data indicating a Conservative bias as well as a Liberal bias. In fact, these days, I'm more suspicious of claims regarding this liberal bias. With Murdoch as involved as he is and major media sources being owned now by a handful of corporations, I'm betting the bias (if there is a bias) is less today. But then again, many conservatives still score points with their base by 'screaming' that rallyinig cry.
sloppyjoes7Feb 10, 2011
The data which, in my opinion, proves the most is this: 85%-95% of US journalists vote Democratic. (Polls have shown this for several decades now) In other words, 9/10 journalists, by their own admission, are Democrats.
This introduces an astounding bias. When the general citizen is 50/50, and reporters are 90/10, then reporters don't represent the average citizen.
Now, I will argue that most journalists TRY to be impartial. However, I believe that such attempts are always futile, and bias is always introduced. As a result, most news leans left.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lemonfireFeb 10, 2011
Where did you get your data? From Fox news? I'm just saying because you just provided me with an anecdote.
sloppyjoes7Feb 10, 2011
Polls of reporters, and large scientific analyzations of bias show the media to be liberal. The only argument is *how* liberal.
darthmeatloafFeb 10, 2011
But I'm no longer surprised that the only people that seem to think that this is a fact are fairly hardcore conservatives...
shwaavayFeb 10, 2011
"News that you do not like is not "liberal", it's called non-bias."
But who decides what is news and what is not? If all the news at any given time was anti-liberal agenda, would you expect that that is all that would be reported? Or would a 'non-biased' news agency try to balance that news with whatever they could dig up on the other side?
withearsFeb 11, 2011
Roger Ailes, Fox News: "I told all of our guys, shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually," the Fox News president said. "You don't have to do it with bombast. I hope the other side does that."
"THE OTHER SIDE"
Even Roger Ailes has given up pretending that Fox News isn't representing a side.
countess666Feb 11, 2011
foxnews fought, and won, a court case giving them the right to lie on TV and call it news.
http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html
(first link on google, do your own research if you want more sources)
if they even remotely wanted to live up to their slogan of fair and balanced why on EARTH would they start such a case?
they admitted in court (under oath!) that they lie on TV, using the first amendment as their defense.
norman619Feb 10, 2011
"smart, un-predictable, non-partisan news is gaining market share because it stands out from the pack."
Here we go again... These guys are NOT journalists. they don't present the news. they comment on the news. They have OPINION shows. When will diggers here like you learn to tell the difference?
waveman56Feb 10, 2011
When they stop claiming they ARE news
norman619Feb 10, 2011
So you can't tell the difference for yourself? That's pretty sad.
waveman56Feb 10, 2011
I can that's why posted the above comment, however many can't :(
norman619Feb 10, 2011
On this I have to agree with you but that is not the fault of the network. That's the stupidity of the viewer. There are lots of people who believe the tech they see on shows like CSI is real as well. I've watched most of the opinion shows on the various news networks and I can't remember any of them claiming they are journalists. I do remember most of them at some point letting their viewers know they aren't journalists.
darthmeatloafFeb 10, 2011
Not as sad as the two following things:
1: You reading that into his reply.
2: The number of people that treat FN pundits as news anchors and believe everything they say.
vectorbFeb 10, 2011
Then maybe it should be called FoxOpinion rather than FoxNews hmmm?
norman619Feb 10, 2011
Their news casts are just as bland as what you find on the other networks.
vectorbFeb 10, 2011
and yet the news ticker and logo remain under the vast majority of their programing which is not news but opinion. Viewers cant off hand recognize what the network is presenting as news or as crazy person entertainment and opinion. It bills itself as a 24hour news network, only 4 of which a day is really news.
sloppyjoes7Feb 10, 2011
Fox News runs 24/7. Having just news would be boring. Therefore, they have liberals, conservatives, economists, entertainment, etc. All news stations do this.
HOWEVER, within Fox News, they have straight news segments. These news segments are quite fair and balanced.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dwtcFeb 10, 2011
The problem is that Beck claims to be revealing truth, and to "educate people about what is going on in our country". He rarely qualifies his pronouncements as opinions, and he has such a strong effect on his listeners/viewers. If you doubt that effect, go to theblaze.com and read the comments left by the readers. They jump full on board with any conspiracy, any anti-Soros, anti-Muslim, anti-Obama claim, no matter how ridiculous. They're so convinced that "The Progressives" are behind every bad thing going on in the world.
Seriously, take 20 minutes and read through the comments on at least 5 different articles at theblaze.com, and tell me that those people all understand that Glenn Beck is only giving his opinions, and that they all make their own independent judgments accordingly.
norman619Feb 10, 2011
That's what EVERYONE with an opinion believes. Its up to YOU to verify the information they are giving you. If you are too lazy to fact check then you are consciously choosing the let him or any other person with a political opinion show do your thinking for you. I feel you should watch at least one conservative and one liberal political opinion show then do your homework.
dwtcFeb 10, 2011
Absolutely, that's what people *should* do. But I hear too many Beck fans (including my own parents), who even eschew CNN as a far-left media organization.
One time I was trying to help my mom with her internet connection over the phone. I told her to type in "cnn.com", since it's short and hard to mess up. She wouldn't do it.
Many of my own family members and neighbors just eat up everything Beck says, because "he's going to save America and uncover the evil plots of progressives like Obama, who are trying to destroy our country."
And according to them, any news outlet that doesn't cover all of that is in the pocket of the progressives and shouldn't be trusted.
I find that Beck himself doesn't hold up to the scrutiny that he holds others up to. He uses so many of their supposedly evil tactics, while he's claiming to expose them. But to his fans, he's the one doing the hard work, finding out all of the dirty details. But when other people do the same to Beck, those people are mud-slinging out-of-context jerks.
norman619Feb 10, 2011
You can't save people from themselves. Look at the voter turn out in this country. It's pretty pathetic. Controlling what people can watch on TV is not the answer. That starts us down a road no one should be advocating.
JustSayNoPartyFeb 10, 2011
Your comments mirror my opinion. Both far-right and far-left conservatives will accuse a source of being biased simply because that source reports something negative regarding their 'team'. Those people who are so sure there is this vast progressive conspiracy that will destroy the nation have definitely been watching too many 'far right' leaning news sources. Now, are these the people to whom progressives must reach across the ailsle to negotiate with?
Both sides with such extreme attitudes kill any chance of 'bi-partisan' compromise.
dwtcFeb 10, 2011
Believe me, I don't think that controlling what people can watch is the answer. Education is important, but it's not (and shouldn't be) the government's job to teach things like this. Culturally we just have to learn to help each other be more aware of this kind of thing.
And for the record, although I complain a lot about Glenn Beck, I feel the same way about left and right-wing pundits. Anybody who gets paid to sit on TV/radio and tell you what to believe is going to make sure they say the things that will make you come back for more.
sloppyjoes7Feb 10, 2011
dwtc, you could say that about anyone. Every single person on Earth tends to voice his/her opinion as though it is fact. This includes Maher, Olbermann, Maddow, and other liberals.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dwtcFeb 10, 2011
Absolutely it applies to all of those liberals. I consider myself to be conservative, but the reason I take issue with conservative pundits so often is because so many people around me take their word for gospel truth.
I think the key isn't to put media personalities on a pedestal and let them get you fired up. Even if someone seems to generally agree with what you believe, don't take anything they say as the truth without verifying it. Even if someone seems to generally disagree with you, don't disregard what they say without understanding it.
Don't get your education from people on TV.
sloppyjoes7Feb 10, 2011
I get my education from everywhere. Some say "don't get your news from talk radio." When, in fact, talk radio is extremely informative of news and facts. So is TV. So is the internet. So are newspapers.
And an intelligent person analyzes the source, and learns from it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
waveman56Feb 10, 2011
This link is worth reviewing. It has some polls from viewers but also journalists themselves;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/13/AR2005061301520.html
JustSayNoPartyFeb 10, 2011
Interestingly, my entire point still stands. Did I say they Present the news? If you prefer to insert the words 'comment on the news', feel free. The point remains that we'd all be better off if so many people didn't feel compelled to get most of their news from 'ultra-biased' sources.
sloppyjoes7Feb 10, 2011
Besides opinionists such as Beck and Olbermann, name a single "ultra-biased" source.
And, as an added challenge, name a liberal ultra-biased source for every conservative ultra-biased source.
purpletentacleFeb 10, 2011
I'd rather have my news bi-partisan or partisan than non-partisan. Non-partisan just has the illusion that the people behind the news don't have a political belief. Bi-partisan has equally skilled people from both sides. Straight up partisan has the bias/slant obviously stated and so you can listen to it with that in mind.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
norman619Feb 10, 2011
No the NEWS should be 100% unbiased. The job of a journalist is to record events as they happen. The job of a news anchor is to present the news. Both are supposed to be 100% unbiased. their job is to simply tell you what is happening not interpreting those events for you. If you want bipartisan takes on the news then watch conservative and liberal opinion shows.
JustSayNoPartyFeb 10, 2011
On this, I completely agree. Unfortunately, I'd guess most get their information from the 'opinion shows' and not the 'News'.
norman619Feb 10, 2011
Which would explain all the network bashing that goes on here.
purpletentacleFeb 10, 2011
Being "trained" to record events doesn't mean you don't have a bias. People are bias just by what events they choose (and don't choose) to record. News programs always show parts of a whole - which part you select to represent will, by nature, be based on what you think somebody else is saying or said. People who are left leaning will understand events under the filters of their belief. People who are right leaning will understand events under the filters of their belief. Training can help you be able to try to see things from other perspectives, but it can't just remove the humanity from you.
The News is simply a group of people's take on what is going on. Like you will get 10 different stories of an accident from 10 different bystanders, you get different takes on what is going on from different groups of people. If you think the news, any news, is unbiased, then you are just ignorant of the unspoken and more subtle biases that are there.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyFeb 10, 2011
Well said, purple. Though, I still believe you are missing the 'degrees' of bias. I for one 'train myself' to be less biased. But of course, I have a biased slant on issues. However, I'm betting I'm less biased than many people who could care less about objectivity.
purpletentacleFeb 10, 2011
You're right -- I should have said something on the degrees of bias. That being said, I still think people aren't nearly as unbiased as they think they are. It's basic human nature -- we almost always see ourselves as better than what we really are.
usarugulaFeb 10, 2011
"The News is simply a group of people's take on what is going on"
'2 people killed in bank robbery' is not simply someone's take. Unless you have an anti-fact bias.
norman619Feb 10, 2011
Well done.
purpletentacleFeb 10, 2011
You get all your news via lone sentences on each subject?
Oh but wait. Let's say those two people are terrorists who murdered the two people in the name of their God while trying to get money to fund their terrorist activities. 2 people killed in bank robbery is the facts - and unbiased -- except that it leaves out a major part of the story. Or say that the title is '2 black people killed in bank robbery by 2 white people". Perhaps that is correct -- just the facts -- but it insinuates that the crime was racially motivated (and somebody who sees things as racially motivated would notice and bring up such a thing) when in reality race had nothing to do with the crime.
It's easy to do, and not just by people who are doing it on purpose. It's easy to do it and not really be aware that you are doing it (which is what I think usually happens).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pw378Feb 10, 2011
You kill a chicken before you put it in the cooking pot. You murder a guard during a bank robbery.
So, your example title is your opinion that 2 people were killed rather than murdered. Just say'inComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sloppyjoes7Feb 10, 2011
It is impossible for news to be unbiased. Why? Because it is filtered by and presented by actual human beings.
Let me give an example: There is limited space in a newspaper, and limited time on TV and radio. Therefore, most news stories are never reported. A news station must choose which stories to present. This, by itself, introduces bias.
And, in fact, every step of presenting a news story introduces bias. Because about 90% of US journalists are Democrats, most news leans liberal. It doesn't require a conspiracy. It's just the way it is.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bille3Feb 10, 2011
That's right. Give me the Who, what, Where, When and How. Let me draw my on conclusions as to why. I do not like it when opinionists try to tell me how and what to think about the why.
There is too much time spent on the later parts and too little time giving us the basic facts, and I mean all of the basic facts. It does a real disservice to only deliver the facts they want us to know.
ascusFeb 11, 2011
Having Non-Partisan news is an unattainable goal. No news station has the time do all the details of every story or even report every story. They have to pick and choose what to show, that very choice is partisan by nature.
Generally at High Level Liberal news is more entertaining and Conservative view of details of news is more engaging. Thus we have the Environment we have. Presented news tends to be liberal and those with discussion tend to be conservatives.
usarugulaFeb 10, 2011
"Non-partisan just has the illusion that the people behind the news don't have a political belief."
Non-partisan news is more akin to science - those involved may have hypotheses, but they are trained to record only the facts. One does not have to lack bias to report unbiasedly.
norman619Feb 10, 2011
If you inject your bias into your reporting you become a commentator and are no longer a reporter.
usarugulaFeb 10, 2011
Precisely.
The more I read your comments, norman, the more I think one of us is the Bizzaro World version of the other. I'm hoping it's you.
sloppyjoes7Feb 10, 2011
The closest to "non-partisan" news station I can think of is C-Span.
ganjadude4391Feb 10, 2011
And air america during bush was not the exact same thing? ( I enjoyed air america BTW)
JustSayNoPartyFeb 10, 2011
I listend to Air America briefly. I stopped due to the ultra-bias. Eventually, if you listen too much to either types of ultra-biased sources, your probably going to become less objective in my opinion.
norman619Feb 10, 2011
Exactly. This is the problem I have with fans of any particular political opinion show. they tend to only watch that show and forget there are other takes on the same news items which may be just as valid.
JustSayNoPartyFeb 10, 2011
Norman, my issue (maybe problem) is that I can't even watch these shows now. When I hear a comentator going over the deep end, I run screaming back to my HGTV and Intenational Homes shows.. :)
norman619Feb 10, 2011
Some I find entertaining. Others I can't watch because the commentator's ego is just way too inflated. If they injected some comedy it's be tolerable. In the end it's all just entertainment.
darthmeatloafFeb 10, 2011
I go to the Science Channel, myself...
Nothing like an hour of Michio Kaku to help you regain your sanity.
sloppyjoes7Feb 10, 2011
TLC, Discovery, NASA, and other similar outlets are all biased.
Just because they claim to be scientific doesn't mean they're not biased.
A truly objective perspective realizes the bias in everyone and everything.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
adorseyFeb 10, 2011
Its because conservatives won the House in Nov. There is less anxiety on the right, now.
entroperFeb 10, 2011
This. Honestly there's just less interest in politics, in general, immediately following an election. And Egypt is probably taking the focus away from local politics.
Sadly, entertainment will always sell better than news and insightful analysis.
noslodecoyFeb 10, 2011
Unfortunately this is most likely due to the results of a won election as adorsey mentions. However, I'd like to see all these pundits go the way of Olberman.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
norman619Feb 10, 2011
I don't. They actually do serve a purpose. The lazy people can at least get SOME info by watching these shows. If the mainstream media was doing it's job and informing the public instead of being cheerleaders and going easy on political figures they like then these opinion shows could go away and we'd lose nothing.
noslodecoyFeb 10, 2011
I'm all for what you wrote, I just don't think this blind uber-partisan punditry is good for anybody. I don't think it's good for the party the pundit represents nor do I think it's good for the viewer who digests either mindless dribble with no content or a story that's been blown so far out of proportion that whatever relevance it once held has been overshadowed by it's absurd rhetoric.
You're right, we should be hard on our political leaders. But hypocrisy should not be fought with hypocrisy and it's running rampant in politics and media. Of course the sun still rises in the west, so what really has changed... I suppose I'm just jaded :P
Closed AccountFeb 10, 2011
Luckily, I speak several languages, seven to be exact, so I can easily get better and more accurate news and without the insane US political mythological bias.
It is amazing how little news actually is shown in the US on any news channel, Americans are totally unaware of a lot of what is happening around the world, sad since a lot of it have an effect on American lives.
willthewayFeb 10, 2011
No they are not right-wing. They are just angry crazy people. Who I consider right-wing pundits would be more like Bill O'Reilly and Joe Scarborough.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
usarugulaFeb 10, 2011
Not sure how you can lump O'Reilly and Scarborough together. I don't always agree with Scarborough, but at least he has integrity. Not so for O'Reilly.
roguegeniusFeb 10, 2011
As long as there are stupid people in the world, there will be a right wing. And as there is mindless, right wing babble, there will be stupid people to pump their fists to it.
Just a fact. Right-wing talk is here to stay. Left-wing talk never will be, because left wingers are smarter and better educated. It would cost too much to keep them entertained.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ed57Feb 10, 2011
Altho I generally agree there are left wing ideas that are equally ridiculous such as the notion that government can afford to take care of large groups of unemployed for long periods of time, that health care is a right rather than a privilege, and that being a criminal is the result of a failed society rather than a failed individual.
centraltransFeb 10, 2011
ok. left wing is better educated? the left wing thinks the government should be involved in every part of our lives, let the government pay for everything. I don't want the government involved in my life. left wing sounds too much like MarxismComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kaiserarnyFeb 10, 2011
If you're a right winger, based on your comment, you're not doing yourself any favour arguing who is better educated.
centraltransFeb 10, 2011
I am educated and I never said I was better educated than anyone else. just tired of seeing the liberal slant every political article that comes across digg.
roguegeniusFeb 10, 2011
I'm tired of seeing the right wing slant on every news article that comes along. Digg is one of the few places a man who doesn't own a television network can correct the errors and lies of those who do. So I, for one, am going to continue.
centraltransFeb 10, 2011
your telling me the majority tv and news networks have a right wing slant? I don't think so
roguegeniusFeb 10, 2011
I AM telling you exactly that. Only Fox is blatantly slanted, but the rest are so easily bullied by the charge of being 'the liberal media' that they make sure the right gets every thing they want. Even the best, most honest news source (PBS's Newshour) is reported as having an average of between 65% and 70% right-wing guests. Often they will bring a right winger on unopposed (this isn't bad, that's how it should be) but an unopposed liberal? Never. Every time that happens some Republican knuckle dragger threatens their funding.
Currently the new spreads the spectrum from 'Far Right' to 'a little right of center.'
Closed AccountFeb 10, 2011
what are your thoughts on gay marriage, drugs, abortion, patriot act
the most common right wing responses for all of them is for more government intrusion. but its intrusion to take away freedoms rather than regulate systems
yibbutkeenFeb 10, 2011
gay marriage - fine by me
drugs - legalize some (pot), increase penalties substantially for others (meth)
abortion - don't support it except in extreme cases, but don't want to outlaw it.
patriot act - flagrant false advertising in its name. It needs to be scrapped and rewritten for any of the powers that are genuinely needed, which I'm sure is a tiny percentage.
On the fiscal side, I'll probably fall off the right of your measuring gauge.
ryanwbFeb 10, 2011
There was a time when the Republican (1960's - I'm channeling Barry Goldwater http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater) ideals went like this:
Gay Marriage - not really an issue back then, but gays in the military - not a problem
Drugs - Dam hippies, but let's explore and look into the tax gains. More than anything they felt this is states rights issue, not something the Federal Government should mess with. You can thank Regan for the failure of this
Abortion - believed the government shouldn't tell a woman what to do with their body - also again - states right
Patriot Act - obviously it would be HELL NO
You can thank the religious right, which caused a huge split with Goldwater, to change all the thoughts on this.
phydeaux70Feb 10, 2011
Gay marriage. Marriage is a religious sacrament and the government has no right to infringe on that. Gay people deserve the same rights as anybody else. Solution: The government should grant civil unions to any two consenting adults and get out of the marriage business altogether. If you want to be married, go to a church.
Drugs. Legalize everything and let the idiots kill themselves. No government programs for kicking the habit.
Abortion. If you are a male and have an opinion of this, be mindful of who you sleep with. If you are a female with an opinion, take care of yourself and stay out of others business.
Patriot Act. The main priority of a country is to protect it's citizens. If this helps it so be it. Freedom is dependent on where you live. In the USA we are more free than other countries, but there is no totally free country in the world (save for tribal areas but they have their own set of 'rules'). There are rules in every country.
ganjadude4391Feb 10, 2011
id say i am right wing these days and
gay marriage - who cares?
drugs - legalize them
abortion - should be legal, in severe cases, such as rape or incest, other reasons... i dont personally agree with but i dont believe its my right to tell you anything...
patriot act, unconstitutional...
any other questions?
usarugulaFeb 10, 2011
"...the left wing thinks the government should be involved in every part of our lives"
Actually, the right lays claim to our assh**es and utireses.
nickymouseFeb 10, 2011
Let's see my doctor, lawyer, co-workers (tech department), dentist, business partners, friends (mostly engineers and linguists), and church members which consist of a jet engineer, dentist, bio-chemist, programmers, and college professors are all conservative right wingers. So thank you for your ignorant comment.
If I want to meet dumb people, I'll drive downtown where 90% are liberal and the schools have a grad rate of 50%, people pay $2600 for a PS3, and the hardest choice they make is what to watch on TV that night. Are all liberals dumb... of course not! Your statement on the other hand is.
torrangeFeb 10, 2011
What are you implying by the term "downtown"? Also, how do you know that they are "liberals"? Because someone may have voted for a democrat of because they are a democrat does not mean they are a "liberal". And 90%?? You cannot just pull a number out of your ass and make it fact - you do realize who came out in force to vote down prop 8 (the same people you are blanketly calling "liberal")
BTW - thanks for for letting us all in on your uber-intellectual inner-circle
nickymouseFeb 10, 2011
They are the residents that live in the big city 20 miles away from me. They vote overwhelming democrat nearly 9 to 1 (8.7 if you want to get anal) last mayoral election and support bills that would give preference to minority contractors, city funding of planned parenthood, and would rather spend money on abstract art projects than to lower business taxes. Maybe that's why I call them liberal. As for prop 8, I don't know what your referring too. Is it that the gay marriage or weed prop in your state?
BTW (you sound kind of douchy) the point of list was to point out that they're many educated conservatives. I was trying to get the image out your head that ever right winger was a PAlin lovin' NASCAR watching, gun nut, that kills baby seals, drive cars that get 1MPG on the freeway and think Obama is the sign of second coming (although I do admit I'm a gun nut). However, your right that many conservatives are not educated, but the same can be said about liberals.
torrangeFeb 10, 2011
seeing the word "liberal" thrown around makes me feel kind of douchy. I hate labels - I tend to sway to the left on a lot of issues but I do like guns, the death penalty, etc.
Never said that watch NASCAR because nobody is watching NASCAR and I do know quite a few well educated conservatives - never felt the sterotype was always true - although the people you described do tend to sway to the conservative side
ninjab3arFeb 10, 2011
I wouldn't go as far as to call the right wing is stupid, but I would say that as long as there are greedy people in it for themselves there will be a right wing.
I had a small debate with a right winger about universal health care. His argument: Its not our responsibility to take care of those who lack the capacity to take care of themselves.
Its a ridiculously selfish argument considering that a lot of right wingers do not know what it is to be BORN INTO low income zones, foster care, or even a household with a deceased/imprisoned parent or relative. And while it is possible in this country for almost anyone to see success in one form or another (The American Dream), where you were brought up has a significant impact on where you go in life.
People like Donald Trump were only billionaires because they had access to the capital necessary to start any large scale business venture due to their wealthy upbringing.
I totally forgot where I'm going with this, so I'll end it here.
yibbutkeenFeb 10, 2011
It is one thing to care for those who can't care for themselves. It is another entirely to care for those who won't/refuse to care for themselves. Unfortunately the latter is the much larger group. We need to be much tougher on those who refuse to do anything because it is easier to do nothing and get a check from the government so that we can help those who genuinely need it.
People like Trump get where they are by being willing to do what it takes. Someone once asked Henry Ford what he'd do if he lost everything he had. His reply was to the effect that he'd be fine, he'd have it all back in 5 years. You can get to the top, you just have to be willing to pay the price to get there. Mostly hard work and wise decisions.
ed57Feb 12, 2011
I don't know if it would be that easy to make a fortune back in five years nowadays. But I DO agree that America's social spending has gone way overboard and is encouraging HUGE numbers of people to not work or try very hard. I also agree that the group who "won't/refuse to care for themselves" is now bigger than the group truely deserving of aid.
phydeaux70Feb 10, 2011
Greedy like Micheal Moore, who is suing for $19 million? He isn't a right winger, far from it.
omgscienceFeb 10, 2011
"because left wingers are smarter and better educated."
I have been all over America and you are all dumb, fat pigs.
roguegeniusFeb 10, 2011
Thank you for playing. I fear there is no consolation prize.
m2rdickFeb 10, 2011
Now just a response like that shows why the left is such a minority. Sure they may show more "smarts" and be more "educated" but their lack of common sense compels them to want to form a committee and analysis everything to total boredom. That is why they can't be entertained by talk shows.
clbwFeb 10, 2011
You have it all wrong. The fact is, people (the right) who watch Beck and Hannity have very little common sense, it's obvious that if they had any they would realize that all they do is spew fictitious bulls**t.
roguegeniusFeb 10, 2011
Wow. A lot of comments in a short time. Hit a little close to home did i?
If I'm wrong, prove it. You are all whining the colleges are hot beds of left wing activity. You are largely right. And who goes to college? And what do you have when you leave college?
The post stands as is. Deal with it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
brad1Feb 10, 2011
You have a fancy piece of paper, tens of thousands of dollars in debt, and not much more knowledge than you had when you got there.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/02/we_are_raising_a_nation_of_foo.html
sabz5150Feb 10, 2011
So pretty much like investing in the stock market, except you have several fancy pieces of paper.
atomheartmotherFeb 10, 2011
"And who goes to college?"
Young, idealistic people, most of whom later start moving towards more conservative positions once they're in the real world.
And then there's folks like you....
nickymouseFeb 10, 2011
I remember when I thought communism was the answer. Then I said hello to real world and got bitched slapped back into reality.
roguegeniusFeb 10, 2011
Same here.
phydeaux70Feb 10, 2011
Let me ask you this question. What political party do you think the masses that live in New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Philly vote for?
News for you roguegenius, most people who live in those huge cities live below the poverty level. Is that the 'smarter and better educated' group you are referring to?
There are certainly a fair amount of idiots out there regardless of political affiliation. But your statement is just ignorant and wrong.
As for the article itself, the ratings for Beck, Hannity et al could drop by 40% and they would still have more viewers than any liberal commentator. Want to have a discussion on that? Let's go. One of us will come away more educated.
roguegeniusFeb 10, 2011
Poverty != Stupid.
Rich SURELY != Smart. (Paris Hilton leaps to mind)
I know that is what the propaganda you worship says, but it's BS. Always has been.
As for your last paragraph. Uh, didn't I just say that at the top? You are so determined to bicker, you don't even see that we agree.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
phydeaux70Feb 10, 2011
Nobody said one equates the other, that's just dumb. But as a general rule the smarter a group of people are the more wealthy they will be. Are there exceptions? Of course there are.
I'll tell you what. If you and I were to make a bet, and each of us had to put up $10,000 of our own money on the creation of a business and there were two groups to choose from: 10 people who were considered wealthy, and 10 people who were considered to live in poverty. What group of 10 people would you want to invest in?
Now....look at it a different way. You could have 10 people from any major city and I could have 10 people from the suburbs, and we the choice had to be 100% random, what are the odds that the 10 people from the suburbs would be better educated?
Does that mean that all 10 from the city are morons? Of course not.
That isn't propaganda that is statistically true.
roguegeniusFeb 10, 2011
Actually, you did equate them. I said stupid people vote republican and you responded. Allow me to quote:
"Let me ask you this question. What political party do you think the masses that live in New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Philly vote for?"
As for who do I want investing? The 10 rich of course. Has nothing to do with smart. If I give it the the poor they have 10 grand to start a business. If I give it to the rich they have 10 grand plus whatever else they have. Who has the better chance? That is what they call the 'uneven playing field.' Pretty obvious when you think about it.
That's why when you are down, you tend to stay down even if you are a genius. Also why if you are rich you tend to stay rich, even if you are an idiot.
phydeaux70Feb 10, 2011
@rogue
I did not say that the people who live in those cities voted 100% for any party, it was meant as a majority. A majority does not equate 100%. And no sensible person who read that would ever equate it to 100%.
Just as you said "As long as there are stupid people in the world, there will be a right wing".
I believe what you are inferring is that a majority of stupid people are right wingers. Certainly you can't mean 100% of stupid people are right wingers....because I can patently disprove that my reading Digg. There are plenty of stupid people on here that are self-described left wingers.
phydeaux70Feb 10, 2011
There are people who believe that a college education doesn't mean you're smart, being rich doesn't mean you're smart either. What is your litmus test for being smart then? Education doesn't mean that you have common sense, and common sense doesn't mean that you're book smart either.
Here's mine. First off, policitical party has nothing to do with it. Being rich or poor doesn't matter either. There are idiots on each side of the aisle, so I won't generalize as you do and say that all liberals are idiots. There is rarely a reason to discount a person totally before getting to know them, given opportunity most people will give you ample reason to dislike them.
Some of my closest friends are liberals, we just disagree on political matters. Most politics are matters of common sense. Should we help people who are unable to help themselves? Sure. Should we help those who won't help themselves? No. Even my liberal friends agree with that.
Children are the only voice that don't any say in their present situation and we should do all we can to help them as much as we can. But we can't stop idiots from having kids (not your version of idiots mind you, because your version of stupid people aren't out robbing banks).
atomheartmotherFeb 10, 2011
Exactly. Two words: Lottery winners. Fools and their money are soon parted, and few fools attain much in the first place.
roguegeniusFeb 10, 2011
Like Joe the Plumber? He was going to open a big plumbing company that Obama was somehow going to destroy with taxes.
But... never happened, did it.
He was dumb. He shot himself in the foot. That is the kind of 'dumb' I'm talking about. He didn't have any money, and he won't get any.
atomheartmotherFeb 10, 2011
Of course it didn't...the world is full of simpletons with big dreams that never materialize. But that really does nothing to support your earlier comments, does it?
centraltransFeb 10, 2011
this must be a left wing article. I still like listening to these guys
clbwFeb 10, 2011
Listening to a stories based on fiction is entertaining.
dannyhirtlerFeb 10, 2011
Right wing ratings are dropping? http://myfacewhen.com/371/
crodulfoFeb 10, 2011
right wings = droppings
darkshroudFeb 10, 2011
They could only dream of these shows failing, just like when they said Glenn Beck's ratings were dropping and his still had more than the rest of them combined. Or the garbage about him loosing a ton of sponsors, no mention how said companies pulled ads from MSNBC and all other networks as well since they wanted no part of the political BS.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kaiserarnyFeb 10, 2011
I only believe ratings when the support my point of view.
laurahoustonFeb 10, 2011
They will ramp-up their use of these mouthpieces to spew lies to the ignorant- when the election gets closer.
Beck and Hannity are lucky they lost the last election..without Obama to attack..they would be on unemployment today!
yibbutkeenFeb 10, 2011
Rush was far more entertaining to listen to during Clinton than Bush.
alanocuFeb 10, 2011
Does Left-Wing Talk radio even exist?
When the left feels voiceless and powerless, just as they do now, they publish articles like this.
The MSM is losing influence and all their big lefty heroes like Olbermann have (or in his case "had") pathetic audiences compared to FOX News reruns.
The liberal strategy to smear conservatives is to call them all "racists." That is a losing strategy. And liberals are going to need to scream extra loud if they ever hope to recover what they lost in November.
So get to it, liberals. Convincing people that your ideas are valid must be too complicated I guess.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
usarugulaFeb 10, 2011
"Does Left-Wing Talk radio even exist?"
Right wing talk: herding sheep
Left wing talk: herding cats
That answers your question right there.
atomheartmotherFeb 10, 2011
More evidence the DB isn't comprised of deep thinkers. Their ratings rise and fall depending on how charged the political environment is at any given time.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
inajeepFeb 10, 2011
I'm starting to get sick of the lot. It is the same recycled people here doing the same comments over and over. I'm am already dreading 2012 political campaign death march. I go in search of better news and better political comments. I fear my search will be never ending.
blindoggbooksFeb 10, 2011
Thank God...getting this country on the right track begins with putting an end to the finger pointing and working together to just get it done.
jarysmFeb 10, 2011
Interesting, this means the schemes they come up with in desperation are going to be ten times as entertaining.
numberonegunFeb 10, 2011
Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh are not news. They are opinion shows. Its quite obvious too. The screen says "THE GLENN BECK SHOW" or "HANNITY" not "HEADLINE NEWS". Just like Olberman was an opinion show. Lefties and Righties play the same game. Common sense will always appeal more than a new government program.
conservative_zombieFeb 10, 2011
The problem is the people want somebody to tell them what is right and what is wrong. Figuring it out for themselves means taking responsibility for ones actions.
numberonegunFeb 10, 2011
Ah the "sheeple" argument. In the age of the internet there is no excuse for lack of educating yourself on the issues. Multiple sources lead to better balanced opinions.
flippinSweet6Mar 3, 2011
>Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh are not news.
In the eyes of Fox "News" viewers they are. You can deny it all you want, but Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh are *BRANDED* as news:
http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu236/iceshaved/Fark/beck_feaux_news.png
magikpooFeb 10, 2011
The damage is done, already.
purpletentacleFeb 10, 2011
Beck/Hannity/Limbaugh loosing ratings doesn't really mean Right-Wing talk radio as a whole is dying. It could be that right wing talk either A) got a huge boost in the last few years with a very left leaning President and is returning to normal ratings now or B) is diversifying, and people are listening to other right wing talk radio hosts (the better ones IMO) like Dennis Prager and Hugh Hewitt.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
syowareFeb 10, 2011
This shouldn't be an argument of liberals are dumb, or conservatives are dumber, or which one is dumber. Realistically both sides just dont agree on many things. Both sides love government intrusion in some things and hates it in others, they just dont agree on which ones)
This should be an argument about how much propaganda the right produces. Want proof? Get on youtube and search for 'o'reilly edits'
vtbarreraFeb 10, 2011
And nothing of value was lost.
stinkypete312Feb 10, 2011
oh yeah...they're going down in flames. they could lose 75% of their audiences and they'd still be beating anything the liberals would put out.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ferretmanFeb 10, 2011
Wow....must be a slow news for the Libs if they're trying to convince themselves of this....
theswashbucklerFeb 10, 2011
Funny how the question in the Daily Beast headline got changed to a statement in the Digg headline.
I'd love it if the likes of Beck and Hannity were off the airwaves, but right wing talk is not dying, it may be less popular now, but dying? Nah...
cyberdactylFeb 10, 2011
I imagine a bunch of far left wing nuts sitting in a circle sitting amongst a room full of lit candles chanting "Right wing talk is dying. . .huummmm" over and over in a lotus position with their eyes closed hoping they can will it true.
BUHAHAHAComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
laurahoustonFeb 12, 2011
you kindof show the world how nutsie and weird the radical rights mind works. Just how does that kind of 'thinking' help or improve anything?
weirdsoneFeb 10, 2011
it's about time.
weirdsoneFeb 10, 2011
it's about time.
isenborgFeb 10, 2011
Lots of wishful thinking in every keystroke of this drivel. They aren't going anywhere folks.
davidnivenFeb 10, 2011
Wishful thinking by depressed liberal whiners who still cannot believe that they got smacked down in the recent elections.
netmongerFeb 10, 2011
Woo Hoo!
mtnmusicmanFeb 10, 2011
I thought they were comedians...damn
phillymozartFeb 10, 2011
If conservatives all watch Fox News, how can one not wonder why liberals don't mind watching the other news channels? Real independence means true indifference to either side, not hating Fox news, Rush, Palin, etc.
jezinbrisFeb 11, 2011
Glen Beck is an idiot
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2011
Limbaugh is the worst. What a sad little man. Now until election day is going to be an interesting ride. Drops in ratings just means they will be crazier, make up bigger lies about Obama.
Also Santorum slammed Palin, because he wants to start to stake out territory for the 2012 bid. It's going to be funny to see how the 20 odd Republicans that desire to run for president act as election day draws earlier. They will probably all turn on each other, and by the time you get the one who gets the nom, whoever they are will be damaged goods. The flaws of every person running will be exposed.
Funny thing is liberals have nothing to do with any of this. Ratings drop because those guys as douchbags. You do not have to be a liberal to understand that. And the republican party turning on itself should demonstrate that they are greedy and will do anything to get ahead, even if that means throwing their own under the bus.
Its pretty f**king sad. So where are those Christian morals?
paultripFeb 11, 2011
bye boys!
medallionsFeb 11, 2011
This makes sense..
For years I listened to Rush & Savage.. Can't stand the rest.
But the last few months, I find myself listening to NPR more and more..
I still label myself an independent conservative, but the Republican Mouthpieces spew out the same garbage day after day.. It gets old..
shauncorleoneFeb 11, 2011
I listen to music and comedy now, and I read various websites for my "news". If I listen to talk radio it's usually Neal Boortz once or twice a month. Most of these commentators and "new anchors" refuse to admit an instance the other party does something they agree with, so they ignore it entirely.
crashdvisFeb 11, 2011
Digg needs to have a section dedicated to Fox News, Sara Palin, and Glenn Beck. They don't need those buttons on the page for Entertainment or Gaming or Lifestyle. Put a Fox, Palin, and Beck button on the home page so we can more accurately reflect the stories that get posted to Digg.
kasha34Feb 12, 2011
Keep dreaming.
kasha34Feb 12, 2011
Ratings go a bit up. Ratings go a bit down. It cycles. What IS going down steadily is go old network news.