What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
He sings, he strums, and he works at Best Buy. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - Musician and Best Buy employee, Keith Parsons, rocks his Best Buy holiday campaign audition.
168 Comments
- Joelcan, on 10/11/2007, -27/+83Is there any way to make O'Reilly Libby's cellmate?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -19/+45I'll be watching the opening segment tonight for his mea culpa. I am sure he will want to rectify his error right away. No spin, fair and balanced means "boy did I make a mistake. Sorry viewers!", Right?
Oops, some sarcasm dripped off my computer screen... - laplacian, on 10/11/2007, -1/+22I know O'Reilly is a fun target, but I do find it pretty surprising that the NYT didn't lead with the story which was front page news almost everywhere else in the country. The blurb at the bottom directs the reader to turn to page 37 for the story, which is not exactly leading news.
- ArnoldTPants, on 10/11/2007, -4/+21The funny thing is Think Progress didn't include an enlarged image because they knew it was obvious the story wasn't on the front page. It was a 2 sentence blurb in a section called 'Inside' (note that they cropped out the section title from their mini-enlarge and covered it with an arrow from the mini-full size. If that doesn't give away the fact that the story isn't on the front page you are an idiot. Not to mention all stories that start on the front page will tell you what page it is continued on, whereas the 'Inside' section will tell you what page the story starts on.
The worst part is that the NYT thought a story about a guy that plays antique violins to keep them in good condition was more important. Wow. Not surprisingly, they have a history of hiding stories they don't like. - BlindingEdge, on 10/11/2007, -20/+37Maybe we should stop posting stories about the things that O'Reilly ***** up, and post a story when he gets the facts right, cause that will be breaking news!!
- doronster195, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13You guys clearly do not understand the point, you´re just being idiotic because of O´Reilly´s bad reputation. His point was that the New York Times felt that the story wasn´t important enough to be shown in bold letters, large, centered and on top on the front page, where it should be. Instead, it´s on the bottom half of the newspaper in small letters.
Maybe if you guys weren´t so set on your thoughts you guys could lend an objective view to this situation.
Though, you are right, he did lie, technically, because it was on the front page, but that was not the point he was trying to make. - AndyO3000, on 10/11/2007, -25/+38O'Lielly is more like it. He of zero integrity.
- ThreeDee912, on 10/11/2007, -4/+17Well, as much as I hate O'Reilly, he was was somewhat correct. The front page just had a small summery and said "Page 37". Still, it's stupid to flame the NY Times just because the placed an article somewhere else.
- diggThomas, on 10/11/2007, -9/+20Get real liberals, that story should have been plastered across the NY Times given that it was a major local home town story. I also watched last night’s show again and he did mention “except for a small front page blurb” so get the facts straight. You might win some local elections with that rhetoric but not the presidency.
- ArnoldTPants, on 10/11/2007, -8/+19If you think the story was on the front page you must think a book starts on the back of the book. The back of most books have blurbs. The book doesn't start until you open it. The front page had a blurb of this story. The actual story started on page 37. If the article doesn't start on the front page then it isn't a front page story.
- doronster195, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11I think his point was that the main part of the story was on page 37. To me it´s ridiculous that the foiled terrorist plot was not in bold letters on the top of the page, with pictures. I´m sure there are many people who don´t bother looking at the side column stories.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -7/+17I agree with what O'Reilly was saying, the story was buried and not deemed front page material. I don't agree that it was purposeful to any other point than the NYTimes correctly determined it was a non-story and much ado about nothing.
- Egoist, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11So a man speaks his mind, which is in opposition to what you think, and you all shout that he should be thrown in jail and/or executed.
I don't care what people like O'Reilly, Moore, Gore, or Limbaugh say -- they have a God-given, constitutionally-affirmed right to say it.
But people like you who expound that a person should be physically detained or murdered for speaking their minds are the ones that are traitors to what this country was founded on. The next time that you rail on about Bush or O'Reilly being warmongers filled with hatred, take a look in the mirror and realize that you are no different. - aldente, on 10/11/2007, -20/+29No. That a couple of disgruntled old men with no access to explosives or a JFK airport fuel pipeline were arrested is not front page news. It's a sad footnote, at best.
- bombscare, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12This "story" and thread are a fascinating example of just how delusional and obsessive leftists can be. A small blurb in a sidebar, below the fold is not a "front page story." This should be obvious to everyone who isn't full of rage against Bill O'Reilly. The New York Times itself acknowledges that O'Reilly was right:
http://www.nytimes.com/ 2007/ 06/ 04/ business/ media/ 04asktheeditors.html:
"In truth, the decision was widely debated even within this newsroom. At the front page meeting this morning, we took an informal poll and a few editors thought the story should have been more prominently played. Some argued it should have been fronted, regardless of the lameness of the plot, simply because it was what everyone was talking about."
Are they lying also? - catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -10/+18Look at the lower right corner of the blurb, it says PAGE 37. It says that because the story is on page 37. I'm pretty sure he saw the story or he wouldn't have known it's on page 37. This is ridiculous.
- JoCliMe, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9It's O'Reilly's decision, don't like what he says, don't watch or whine.
- ParatusRH, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7I really hate to bust everyone's bubble, but the NYT's national editor says they didn't consider the story important enough to put on the front page. "the editors in charge this weekend did not put this story on the front page."
Here is the link to the NYT's response.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/business/media/04asktheeditors.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1181142017-RYUyDzcyqaAEdppbEH0dhQ - CelebVoy, on 10/11/2007, -11/+18Don't even read just digg me down.
I can personally see why he got the impression that the story was not there, even though it was PHYSICALLY there. The fact that the NYTimes chose to put the story almost at the bottom of the page is ludicrous. I would like to see the most important stories in big bold letters right at the top. I read the story which he refers to as a "story about bricks" and I have to say that it was not as important as having more threats on airports which have been verified and people are being prosecuted for. Let me just ask the question to everyone who is going to digg me down, which story is more important to you? - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6wow thinkprogress is such a fair site, so open minded..... NOT
- DUSTOFF101, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6The story wasn't on the front page. A "mention" of the story was on the front page referring the reader to another page. The story did not start on the front page.
Why are people screaming about this anyways? Typically when a story like this breaks, it's all general information anyways filled with unreliable quotes from "unnamed sources close to the investigation". Those are so trustworthy! - Barbarino, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5It's amazing to me how dishonest TP is, yet the diggers fall for it. 3 people tried to blow up a jet fuel line in a neighborhood to kill as many people as possible, yet we have stories about bricks on the cover of the paper.
- markgl, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5you guys aren't getting it and neither is thinkprogress. They call themselves THINKprogress yet people put little thinking into what he is saying. They have a tiny article on a terror plot foiled and it isn't the main headline. It should've been plastered all over the front page people! isn't it great news that a terror plot was foiled!!! Doesn't it deserve to be on the front page in massive bold letters!!! Instead of a small cut at the bottom of the front page???
Please people make me believe that you all have the smarts and the capacity to know what is going on here. - doronster195, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Or maybe, because it´s an important issue. And it also shows that we have gotten safer, and that we have intelligence now to stop some terrorist attacks (hopefully all).
Rather than analyze every possible story as a political side, look at it with an open-mind and then decide what you have to say about it. - markgl, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5oh and also thinkprogress would be a useless site if bill didn't exist. They wouldn't have anything to write about and people couldn't cry about bill all day long.
- scottc, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9@yutt
It was not a front page story. Period. Do you even read newspapers? - mmacmu1, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8Its not a teaser! Its the article itself, continued on page 37. It doesn't say "turn to page 37 to learn about how terrorist want to blow up JFK." The story starts on page 1 and ends on page 37. I agree that it is clear that it was not the "spot light" article, but it is on the front page.
- yutt, on 10/11/2007, -8/+12Let's break this down.
"The story[1] wasn't on[2] the front page.[3]"
1. An account or recital of an event or a series of events.
2. Was not present on.
3. The front page of the newspaper.
A portion of the story was on the front page of the newspaper. Given that the story was on the front page of the newspaper, clearly, the story was on the front page of the newspaper.
Are we still struggling with this? - KaiserSousa, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6O'Reilly was correct. The story was on page 37. The front page simply has a blurb stating that the story is on page 37.
- Jamihabs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4You are Right! If this plan had succeeded, it would have been the first time fire had ignited gasoline
- Jamihabs, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4You, my friend are a lunatic liberal. If you were a member of the middle right, you would accept that there are reasonable people who hold views to the right of yours, as well as those who are to the left.
- Jamihabs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3His ratings are higher than any other cable program in his time slots
- GiggleStick, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3This is really funny.
"We have illegible proof it was on the front page. See right there? Wait let me make it bigger. See the headline? It's 2pts bigger than the text of the blurb and it's BOLD for chrissakes. How can you not see it? It clearly tells you that you can read about it on page 37. I don't know how we can make it any clearer. We're taking this very seriously, obviously." - megaskins, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4O'Reilly is right. The NYT trivialized the story. Below the fold with an short excerpt is no way to treat a major terrorist attack.
- PopcornDave, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@joelcan
If you threw every reporter who was an idiot, in jail, you'd have to release all the murderers. - Factionrider, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7It's the newspaper's decision. Don't like what's in it... get a different paper.
- jedikv, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2my thoughts exactly
- eagle22s, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2read and learn
http://newsbusters.org/node/13272 - LastVisibleDog, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@yutt: " A portion of the story was on the front page of the newspaper. Given that the story was on the front page of the newspaper, clearly, the story was on the front page of the newspaper."
You are wrong. An index blurb was on the front page and that is not a story - none of the story was on the front page. The story STARTED on page 37 - it was not continued on page 37. If on HBO tonight they play a promo for the last episode of the Sopranos - should I claim I have seen the last episode of the Sopranos (or even part of it)? Using your logic I would have to say yes.
Stop drinking the kool-aid and think for yourself. - Jagdwulfe, on 10/11/2007, -9/+11@aldente Are you that clueless to think that they could not easily produce their own explosives? Your logic would allow another Oklahoma City bombing.
- diggerphelps, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I hate to do this, but I have to agree with O'Reilly.
Technically, it isn't on the front page.
But I still get to disagree with O'Reilly's point that the JFK "terror plot" is some kind of big front page, above-the-fold type story.
It was, after all, a "foiled" plot and not a "successful" one, the type which -- for some reason -- only get mentioned on The Factor when they involve incompetent, bungling Martyrs for Allah as opposed to regular old incompetent, bungling Good Ol' Boys for Jebus. - Jamihabs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I didn't get it. Is this comment a joke I missed. Or, are you a blubbering idiot (aka nut job).
feel free to explain. - Egoist, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4He's not a journalist, he's a commentator. Learn what the difference is. His job is to take news that journalists produce and then comment on it based on his own opinions and bias. You don't watch The O'Reilly Report for accurate reporting anymore than you watch The Daily Show for accurate reporting.
- mamamama2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3
But let's not replace a clayfooted righty with a clayfooted lefty - Franken himself is occasionally a tad mistaken. He's going to run for the Minnesota Senate, and a lot of us here have had enuf antics -- we got rid of Governor Jesse Ventura -- who turned out to be no Arnold Schwarzenegger. Go slow with Franken -- his opinions are edgy because he's never had to be elected and actually REPRESENT anyone other than his own clever verbiage... - TheFederalist, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4ARE YOU PEOPLE FREAKING SERIOUS?????????????????
This was a HUGE story that the NYT treated as a "oh yeah, and this happened too, but it's not important" story. Yes, it was technically mentioned on the front page, but it's beneath the fold and contains nothing more than a tiny paragraph! No Picture or anything attention grabbing!
Most people would consider "the front page" as being one of the first things you see while walking by the news stand. And they thought that Indian brick makers were more important?????????
It's OBVIOUS that the NYT wanted to downplay the event and if you can't see that you are an absolute idiot. I have no more words to waste on you. - Jamihabs, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3And You?
- CobaltBlue, on 10/11/2007, -16/+18He did not mean that it wasn't the main story on the front page. He said ....
"In Sunday's Times, editor Bill Keller put the JFK story on, ready, page 37 right above a story about kids playing at Fuddrucker’s restaurant. Every other New York City paper had the Muslim suspects on page one, where they should have been."
You would have to do spins of O'Reillian caliber to spin that as saying that he means that it just wasn't the main story on the front page. - williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Well, it wasn't quite as lam3 as the "terror plot" made up by the bunch of homeless bums who couldn't buy a bottle of Thunderbird between them.
- DreadPirate, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Ahh, the antisemitism of the left rears its head again....
- bigturns, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@lastvisibledog, "Translation: you hate it when left wing propaganda is proven to be dishonest. Don't hide behind your bigotry."
Look, mush-head, I couldn't have been more clear. I will spell it out for you. The Christian fascists, whether they understand they are fascists or not is not my concern, disdain any fact and/or opinions which run counter to their views. They will and have, in large numbers, swooped down from their lofty perch, amongst the clouds, to digg and or reclassify threads in an attempt to kill the story. This was my point.
As to the motives of the Times as to why, instead of publishing a full cover spread of bloody babies being burned in a JFK pipeline fire, the editors chose to print a small lead-in on the front cover one can only guess.
Wait, I have a guess. Um, oh yea, the reason the NY Times didn't run a full cover is because this is a non-story. Every expert whose been interviewed, short of the ***** fascist nut jobs seen on Fux'd unNews, has said the same thing. Precautions, already in place, would have, had ignition been achieved, caused localized explosions to the 'terrorized' pipeline segment(s). Exploding a jet fuel pipe doesn't, regardless of what we see in movies, necessarily ignite/detonate the contents of the pipe. The New York Times knew what everyone but Fux'd unNews and its viewers knew - federal officials confirmed the alleged 'terrorists' had no experience, no backing, no money, no explosives and no inside information. Jet fuel is not volatile like gasoline. Experts have said that it takes a minute or two, if using a blow torch, to get a pool of jet fuel burning.
So ***** Fux'd unNews - they knew this was *****... yet in the same breath they beat the 'terror' drums all the while suggesting the 'liberal media' is attempting to sweep 'truth' under the carpet. The truth is, Fux'd unNews has built its audience through hourly doses of fear-loaded demagoguery. The truth is, Fux'd unNews is the propaganda arm of the GOP. The truth is, Fux'd unNews is filled with ideologues who will tell specious lies until they are blue in the face...
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
~ Joseph Goebbels -
Show 51 - 100 of 172 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is