What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
53 Comments
- inactive, on 01/31/2008, -0/+27I don't understand these guys...it's a legitimate publication. If they just publish good content they'd enjoy the thousands of social media submitters who are scouring the web for good material anyway. Bottom line, if you deliver interesting news it will end up on social media, you don't need to hire anyone to do it.
- depro9, on 01/31/2008, -1/+26Well-respected & News Corp? OK!
- treeflappa, on 01/31/2008, -1/+15Man i hate murdoch!
- MikeonTV, on 01/31/2008, -1/+13Thats some good work there detective
- inactive, on 01/31/2008, -1/+11Ruuuuuupeeeeeerttttt Muuuuuurrrrrrrddddddddddddoch!!!!!!
- bosssmiley, on 01/31/2008, -1/+11Once upon a time: "There are three journalists outside. Oh, and a gentleman from The Times to see you". No longer.
Since the Times went to a tabloid format in 2005 it's degenerated into a tabloid mentality too. A shame to see the Thunderer reduced so. - GrantRobertson, on 01/31/2008, -0/+9I agree. To my mind, "well respected" and "owned by News Corp." are mutually exclusive.
- inactive, on 01/31/2008, -1/+8It's owned by Rupert Murdoch.
The world biggest ***** Neo-con. - unicronband, on 01/31/2008, -0/+7They do a pretty good job of frequently spamming digg.
- Locke23, on 01/31/2008, -0/+6Mr. Murdoch strikes again
- inactive, on 01/31/2008, -1/+7Trust me, i'd rather have an article by The Times than an article by the Daily Mail (which more and more seem to be popping up)
- dondara, on 01/31/2008, -0/+6"there's nothing on Myspace"
Truer words never spoken - djm101, on 01/31/2008, -0/+5I would not be surprised if the Daily Mail also apply this to Digg, not a day goes by without a front page article from them.
Then again, it could be because American Digg users don't realise the Daily Mail is the equivalent of Fox News in Britain (albeit not to such an extent). - protogenxl, on 01/31/2008, -0/+5News Corp != Respectable
- gropo, on 01/31/2008, -0/+5What do MacGyver and Journalistic Integrity have in common? Both have a nemesis named Murdoch.
- ian9outof10, on 01/31/2008, -1/+5Actually, that's not true. Ask any editor working on the Murdoch press and they'll tell you that you can always feel him looking over your shoulder.
He is VERY much the editorial head of all his papers. - plingboot, on 01/31/2008, -0/+4At first glance this seems like fair game. Surely every other post submitted these days is someone trying to either promote their own personal blog or some corps stuff. Then you get people writing junk specifically draw in traffic... top 25 ways to do whatever wth an iphone...
Don't see this as being all that much different really. - thinman1189, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3The same Times that covered the Sibel Edmonds story? I'm surprised something owned by News Corp would touch a story like that... Anyway, if that's true then I've lost all the respect that remained after realizing they were owned by News Corp.
- davidwasman, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3This jackass used to be on Digg. He's one of those people who also spammed Michelle Malkunt, LGF, and Hotair on digg all the time. Digg Abuse banned him, eventually. Good riddance.
- neocr0n, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2Even though Murdoch owns The Times its certainly more central than anything else, used to lean a little to the right. News Crop also owns The Sun which has a much bigger circulation, its this paper that Murdoch messes with.
- mmhoffman, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2The Guardian is now covering the story: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/digitalcontent/2008/01 ...
- blate, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2Well I don't know the extent to which the Times were involved (ie whether they knew the methods Sitelynx used when they hired them) but with a name like Sitelynx they must have had a clue at least. On the other hand, many people submit their own content to social media sites in order to get publicity, at least the Times' content is slightly more relevant than someone's blog about why they hate cats. Content submitted on social media sites get filtered anyway, either by the readers (Digg), or by admins, so if it gets through then people want it. I'm not sure how disgusted to be yet...
- WoundedCow, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2next they'll try spamming www.floorstyle.com
- orangefly, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2great....now that they're busted, the bastards going to try to buy digg....
- Mejogid, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2It does target a very different demographic (generally well off businessmen) with a right leaning tilt. It's generally well written and at least superficially neutral in most matters, and if you read it with the sceptical mind with which you should approach any media it's (in my experience) a very worth while news source. It also has the kind of demographic that would respond very badly to the sort of scandal and ridiculous reporting that Fox News, for example, seems to get away with. Essentially, I don't think being part of News Corp really makes them less well respected than many other UK (ex-)broadsheets.
- SpudgeBoy, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2Nothing owned by News Corp is well-respected.
Buried as complete *****. - Arkz, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2...what's with the picture of a Vectrex? lol
- VitriolAndAngst, on 01/31/2008, -1/+3It does seem like they are just exchanging the cost of good investigative reporting, with the expense of spamming social media.
But really, Rupert Murdoch makes his money selling politicians to the people. He trades the influence of ratings for what he can do for people like Guilliani -- and what they can do for him. At the high realms of business, there is no better investment than in buying a politician -- it seems to me that it can give you 100 to 1, to 1,000 to 1 for your investment.
So entertaining or informing the masses is a loss-leader. You need enough so that you can get the eyeballs to sell the government as a product. You get the politicians on your side because you promote them -- it makes them feel safe. You will notice a lot of companies, like Archer Daniels Midland, or some defense contractor, advertising on these news shows -- you should ask yourself, why would they need to advertise to me? No, they are just "paying their dues" for the actual content of the program. It's just a thinly veiled disguise of "paying the house." The mob loved the casinos back in the day, because money could be "lost" to the casino and become legitimate currency. CNN and Fox promote a war, and GM advertises on those shows. If they get people to watch -- all the better. Are Nielsen ratings even accurate? Probably not. More Likely, only TiVo is getting accurate data. But you and I don't really know anything beyond what we are told. It's a system that is in transition from an advertising to propaganda capitalization.
If Rupert were spending money on quality content, he would be getting eyeballs based upon useful and accurate content. In his market, he can get a profit from adds, or get that 100 to 1 investment return of favors to specific people of power -- probably recouped by the benefits of the propaganda to other companies/concerns like GM, or groups like Blackwater that increased more than 1,000% since the war started. Ad fees are just a conduit to pay the house.
If he can keep enough people reading his paper, and making up the rest with spam, he can make a lot more money than he could we a few more readers and telling the truth. Does Coke really want a news show telling you the "truth about soda?" No. The companies advertising only care about access. So do the politicians. So, there is only an incentive to keep it truthful seeming enough so that you won't just reject it. - OrangeyTang, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1And now you have just added it to Digg.
I would think that most of the other sites have ended up the same as this one. how many people will now link to this story, which in turn will link to the times web site. - whistlerpro, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1I dunno, Murdoch can flip flop.
- Lyndoman, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2Diggers love Murdoch, his stuff is on the digg front page everyday.
- inactive, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Interesting that there's nothing on Myspace, what with that and The Times both being owned by Murdoch...
- davidwasman, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2Sorry for the comment spam, but please report this user to digg abuse: http://digg.com/users/Wyspa03
his old account, where he used his real name 'piotr', is still banned, though. - pictureDIGGER, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2I don't wonder why Ron Paul always gets buried now. I thought TV didn't know about digg.
- missingnoh4x, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2[Obligatory 'Buried as Times spam']
- gotamd, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Could we please use more accurate titles? The Times is not spamming social media websites. They hired an SEO which may or may not be doing it knowingly. It's quite possible that The Times has no idea this is going on. The article title should reflect that.
- nkassi, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Woahahahahah! Good one! Asking for accurate title and description on digg is like asking for the sun to go from north to south(will happen in 2049 when the poles are half way inverted).
Nic - createcontent, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1TV surely knows about digg.Infact my local station wlwt has adopted a "digg-esque" system for local news..."News 5 Nation" is pathetic really. Cincinnati citizens submit news and the best get recapped once a week,,How daft....
http://www.wlwt.com/news5nation/index.html
I am willing to bet virtually every media outlet in the U.S. have teams that promotes stories on social media sites. We may care about digg spam. But it will be a cold day in hell when the large media outlets care. I think this is growing trend on digg. And while it may be easy for the "algorithm" to filter out small spammers. What happens when it's "Fox News" and the hire a "team" to "explore" digg and other social networking/bookmarking "options"..In the end I think large media outlets could have a significant impact on digg. But just my 2 centz... - fokov, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1That didn't take long
- BlackOp, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Labour are a conservative party now.
- richardiscool, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2So why do they have opposing political views?
- foomandoonian, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1This is only going to become more of a problem over time, sadly. Anyone else remember when the internet had no ads?
- ncifuentes, on 02/09/2008, -0/+0High quality editorial content will keep them where they are....no need to hire spam posters...this is simply just getting to aggressive, and getting caught red handed. Just so silly, when it was never necessary at all!
- LordRedSnake, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1Is this really worse than the digg bait sites like cracked.com and coedmagazine and their endless supply of top 10 (or 8 or 5 or whatever number's easiest)
- thomashauk, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1Apperently they hired advertisers who hired someone who did this, The Times knew nothing until it was too late
- mmhoffman, on 01/31/2008, -0/+0It looks like there might be a pattern with the Times Online. Their Communities Editor was banned from MetaFilter about a month ago for linkspamming stretching back a year.
http://metatalk.metafilter.com/15526/No-guessing-r ... - mmhoffman, on 01/31/2008, -0/+0Actually, since their Communities Editor has also been spamming social networking sites for a year, I don't think it's inaccurate at all to say that The Times has done this.
- richardiscool, on 01/31/2008, -2/+2He doesn't really have much editorial input over his outlets... The Sun supported Labour in the last election, btu Sky News has a very obvious conservative bias.
- inactive, on 02/18/2008, -1/+1Nobody actually READ the article, did they?
-
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is