What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
100 Comments
- Verchiel77, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27And, in further developments, water is revealed to be wet...
- remove, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18I digg Fox's coverage choie. Dead porn stars, err, "cultural icons" are way more important than our veterans, you know.
- drum_bum, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19I applaud CNN for actually mentioning Walter Reed more than Anna Nicole. That's pathetic that I would applaud a news agency for reporting on actual news rather than meaningless gossip. How the hell can Fox News only mention Walter Reed 10 times? If you want to see media bias look no further than this chart.
- DJShay, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21FOX is now officially the TV version of The Enquirer.
- TozerAptor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I don't watch FOX news, but MSNBC and CNN also did a lot of Anna Nicole coverage, too much even. This coincided with my decision to abandon all cable news networks....how strange....
- MinisterOrange, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11This celebrity worship culture has to stop at some point.
- ebolaworld, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10You leave my panties out of this!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Didn't one of the Fox News talking heads say that stations that covered things other than Anna Nicole were "snobs"? Apparently caring about the treatment of soldiers is snobbish...
- jhnewt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The public doesn't know what they want. People are stupid. I'm going to go live alone on an island now...
- greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10
Anna had bigger boobies... are you really surprised? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Was I the only one who saw the "excuse" for the coverage? "Rating are up nearly 5 fold when we cover the Anna Nicole story. This is what YOU want to see". So their excuse for not covering real news it that the tabloid crowd couldn't get enough from entertainment tonight, and needed all day coverage of this crap, and that is the excuse used.
Next time they say they are a news organization, this reasoning needs to be spit back at them.. - sdpdt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Why single out Fox in this? Every other news network gave Anna Nicole tons of air time as compared to anything else important.
- thebaron2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This is NOT something unique to Fox - it's a sad commentary on the state of ALL of our media, and indeed what the public deems important and interesting. Add the numbers up for MSNBC, CBS, and CNN and I'm sure that they'll be equally skewed.
The whole country spent (and some are _still_ spending) far too much time on this. - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Now, the interesting thing would be to analyze how many STORIES were done on Anna Nichole(assuming her name was mentioned more than once per story) and Walter Reed. Also, How long was each subsequent story in relation to each keyword.
IF this was only based on the number of times Fox said "Anna Nichole" vs. "Walter Reed", I'd say it was a hatchet job done just for the main stream media and liberal columnists to try and beat up fox with.
Edit: Oh, gee... it's from Thinkprogres..... - Szandor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Dick Cheney, being pure evil, cannot die. He will only change form.
- Daedalus17, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Why? It has always been this way and probably always will. Even in Roman times they cared more about star athletes then politics.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14Fox News could air Micheal Moore movies 24 hours a day and the Liberal Diggers would still get their panties in a bunch over it.
- diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You're right. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to watch the 'American Idol' updates on my local Fox newscast.
- gomezfreak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4KIDS eh? All the networks suck, none of them are better. Do you feel better? I'll say it for you and you can all say it with me.
5 companies own everything.
5 companies own everything
5 companies own everything
If that does scare or piss you off, I don't know what will. - Garageband, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3***** YOU ANNA NICOLE SMITH!
- aroundtheblock, on 11/06/2008, -0/+3I'm not one to defend fox news, but every network devoted just as much airtime to anna nicole's retarded drama then anything actually important going on during those weeks.. total mindless "NEED MOAR RATINGS" *****
- antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Breaking news: ONLY Foxnews covered Bill Mahr wishing death to the VP.
- ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Nude photos on TV in the States???
Yeah, that will go over well. - totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4They definitely know their core audience :p
- snotrokit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think this is a pretty grand example of how truly sad American media has become. I don't care if it is Fox, CNN, MSNBC, whatever. American media and news outlets are all biased garbage. One goes this way, the other goes that way. Everything is ratings, or spin, or right or left. Someone is pandering to someone. When A.N., Britney's hair, TomKat'w wedding and Paris' crotch shot of the day trump real issues for the headlines time and again, it is time to look elsewhere for your news.
I personally turn to the web and pull news sources from about 12 different countries to get as close as I can to a real view of the real world.
Where have all of the moderates gone? - tcquad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Putting a "Support our troops" bump between segments does not constitute actually supporting the troops.
- Jwoey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3a bear in my bedroom and no escape!
- Spiritcatcher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Support the troops" is as much of a cliched platitude as: "Our hearts and prayers go out to them." News flash! VA hospitals have been cesspools since WWI. You want to support the troops? Go to the VA hospital and volunteer to empty colostomy bags.
- fibrodenial, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You know why Walter Reed story didn't get much coverage? Cause the mistreatment of war veterns in America isn't news... it is a common reality. Ask my daddy... he was one of the many soldiers that were spat on upon his return from Viet Nam and despite two tours of duty and first hand accounts of the most gruesome bloodbaths you can imagine, he is still herded through the doors of his local VA like common cattle.
- TootsMutant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's sure as {expletive} true.
Seems to me that there's more to supporting the troops than slapping a decal on your SUV or dead celebrity worship, but clearly the "news" media haven't realized that yet. - flink405, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Who cares? One day´s news viewing. What was it on other days?
Maybe CNN did all their Nicole news the day before or after. - Spiritcatcher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@cpuenvy: You tell us we don't have jobs and you lurk and troll the page posting the same worthless link at least twice that I've seen. There are 300 million people in America. Fox covers the globe. I'd venture to say that one lock step, drink the koolaide, TV tabloid sink hole owning a couple million viewers is neither impressive nor of a profound impact.
- an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@CPU
He was actually saying that, though he was predisposed to dislike Fox, CNN was every bit as guilty of celebrity journalism.
He was not impolite, nor did he mention viewership.
Why be such a condescending dick? - adam07, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I hate Fox as much as the next person but CNN CONSTANTLY had Anna Nicole coverage, too. They were just as bad.
- DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"So, how many Anna stories compared to Walter Reed did Digg have on the front page"
I was curious.
A quick search of unburied stories shows 1 ANS story announcing her death, 1 Walter Reed story and 3 about how media coverage of serious issues got shafted by the ANS death.
A search of buried stories shows 5 about ANS, 3 on Walter Reed and 6 on the news coverage of ANS taking away from serious issues. - bigjimslade, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Ok, how much more time has NBC, ABC, and CBS spent on Global Warming stories over the past three weeks than "pro-troop" news?
- mille716, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2WTF? Are you even serious?
News shouldn't be judged by a "which one supports the troops more" fight. They should be judged by REPORTING THE TRUTH! If a news agency is out to give positive stories on soldiers and war, they aren't news then, they're propaganda. - Jwoey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I wish they finally would. Who determined that seeing a boob was worse than seeing a guy get murdered on law and order or something.
not that i have a problem with either one. - FullMetalMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Comparing the "Scoreboard" you posted to the other "Scoreboards" on the website, it does appear that the Fox News Network's ratings are slowly slipping and every other channel are observing an increase in their ratings. So while they maybe on top now, in a few months or so, the situation will be differen
- an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yeah. One word: Geraldo.
- mille716, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"They are just giving the public what they want."
Please. They are appealing to their audiences most basic sensationalist qualities. This NOT about ratings *****. A news agency (or one proclaiming over and over to be news) has a responsibility to educate their audience on the whats going on in the world. Anna Nicole is not important, not news and certainly a huge distraction to the public when talked about 10X more than injured soldiers forced to stay in a rat infested *****. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"strangely enough we find you here....reading/making comments....how embarassing..."
I don't use Digg as a news source. I read Digg for my own entertainment. I'm sure Digg has far more Anna Nicole stories than Walter Reed stories as well. - looseshoes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why does Fox (or any other network) consistently show what many people consider trashy or un-newsworthy (probably including their editors)?
They want as many viewers as possible so they can sell commercials for as much money as possible. -$$$- Maybe the answer to about 9.9 out of 10 times a question is asked "why does some company or gov do "? - chamblah, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8So?
I'm sure all other news outlets did the same.
Nothing newsworthy about that - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Digg, as a news site, is far more of an embarrassment than Fox News. Thinkprogress doesn't even deny their bias.
- KDX200rider, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Because we all know it is far worse to call someone a "*****" than it is to wish them dead.
- DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Look at the website where this information is hosted. "Thinkprogressive.com" slightly slanted?"
I'm sure the Progressive Learning Center thanks you for leading more people to their site to take advantage of their tutoring services. - Ydnar24, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5They are just giving the public what they want.
- vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@"Fox News sucks, but let's not ignore the reason WHY they spent more time on Anna than Reed; viewers prefer the former."
Given the choice most viewers would prefer free coke and hookers and money from dead people but they won't admit it.
And to be fair the Roman people liked to see Gladiators kill eat other and Christians get eaten by lions and the Emperor of Rome gave it to them because it was what they wanted... But it didn't make it right.
It is both the fault of Fox and the viewers.
Just because you are greedy and have money to make doesn't absolve you of responsibility. - keybsnbits, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2But that is a direct quote... "fair and balanced" is (or used to be) the Fox News slogan. Fox has never called themselves, or been called, 'the "pro-troops" network'. You're blatantly wrong.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is