What is Digg?139 Comments
- crywolf, on 04/06/2008, -24/+164THERE WAS A ***** PROBLEM COMPLETING YOUR ***** REQUEST! PLEASE ***** RELOAD AND TRY AGAIN!
DIGG NOT ***** SAVED, PLEASE RELOAD THE ***** PAGE AND TRY AGAIN! - dannyboy3020, on 04/06/2008, -5/+73Submitter of "Author of Obama Hit Piece Turns Out to be Clinton Donor!" turns out to be Obama supporter!!!
- tzisc, on 04/06/2008, -0/+44did she write a hit piece because she is a clinton donor, or is she a clinton donor because she hates obama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies#Log ... - duggdowncatisad, on 04/06/2008, -1/+41I tried to digg you up, but I got the same ***** message. This site is going to *****.
- BananaGrabber, on 04/06/2008, -1/+35I haven't read the article it's referring to and don't how accurate or inaccurate it is. Still, that's besides the point. What's so surprising of an anti-Obama writer donating to the Clinton campaign. It's kind of assumed the author is a Clinton supporter.
- skippyoh, on 04/06/2008, -5/+38I've seen this same comment in pretty much every article on digg today. meh i'll digg you up anyway.
- forgiste, on 04/06/2008, -1/+29I'll digg it up because it's an important issue, it's not spam.
- saska, on 04/06/2008, -0/+24Explain to me what part of Obama's policy on gay rights sucks.
Is it the part about extending hate crime protection to include sexual orientation and gender identity?
Is it the part about repealing Don't Ask/Don't Tell?
Is it the part about conferring the same rights and benefits to same-sex couples as married couples?
Is it the part about refusing to amend the Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman?
Or is it that none of that matters because he says that "marriage" as a word is applied to opposite-sex couples, and the word is more important than the rights? - saska, on 04/06/2008, -0/+24The inaccuracy of the article is that Obama did give an interview to another gay press publication, just not this one.
That's why this is a story -- not because the guy whined about it. - saisumimen, on 04/06/2008, -2/+25Wouldn't it be sad if the digg coders broke the site code when they were inserting the April fool's prank?
GG guys. - sfgeek, on 04/06/2008, -0/+23I can't even tell you how many times I've seen this when I try and post a comment. 50% of the time at least. I'm at a point where I visit Digg only when I'm really, really bored. Digg's comments are also approaching the IQ level of your average YouTube commenter as well.
- Metavirus, on 02/10/2009, -1/+22Of course, but the conflict was not disclosed
- santasing, on 04/06/2008, -0/+15Needed to be said.
- Gerz1219, on 04/06/2008, -4/+19Well, I guess when Obama wins the nomination, gays and lesbians will be voting for McCain in droves.
- thylacine222, on 04/06/2008, -1/+15Commenter who said "Commenter who said "Submitter of 'Author of Obama Hit Piece Turns Out to be Clinton Donor!' turns out to be Obama supporter!!!" turns out to be a Clinton supporter!!!!!!!" turns out to be McCain supporter!
There, that should mix things up. - bbatsell, on 04/06/2008, -1/+13Reporters are almost universally forbidden from donating to political candidates that they have any possibility of covering. Many reporters even go so far as to refrain from voting to minimize conflicts of interest.
I don't know of a single publication that allows its reporters to make donations, let alone to make them and not disclose the conflict. - rabidg00se, on 04/07/2008, -2/+14HOLY ***** WAY TO MISS THE POINT EVERYBODY
The problem is that the author didn't disclose the donation (and as such a possible conflict of interest), which is fairly common practice in journalism. - inactive, on 04/07/2008, -4/+15THERE WAS A ***** PROBLEM COMPLETING YOUR ***** REQUEST! PLEASE ***** RELOAD AND TRY AGAIN!
DIGG NOT ***** SAVED, PLEASE RELOAD THE ***** PAGE AND TRY AGAIN! - purzzzell, on 04/06/2008, -1/+10The complaint is that there's supposed to be something called "journalistic integrity" - it's fine that this person has a bias. The issue is that they didn't disclose that bias.
- inactive, on 04/06/2008, -3/+11in other news...people who post anti-Hillary news stories on digg are Obama supporters
- legendxx, on 04/06/2008, -0/+8LOL
- saska, on 04/06/2008, -1/+8Maybe you should read his answers to the Human Rights Commission's questionnaire on GLBT issues. From your comment, I think you might be surprised.
PDF Link: http://a4.g.akamai.net/f/4/19675/0/newmill.downloa ...
The only thing in there that I can even conceivably interpret as being anti-GLBT is this:
"Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman. If I was President, however, I would oppose any effort to stifle a state’s ability to decide this question on its own. Whether it was a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or a bill like the Defense of Marriage Act, I would oppose such efforts."
He's right that the rules of marriage are delegated to the states by the constitution. That's evident in the different rules in each state -- how many years constitutes a commonlaw union, whether or not community property comes into play, etc.
In states where same-sex civil unions are legal, Obama supports the extension of ALL legally-conferred rights to those same-sex couples. - killerknives, on 04/06/2008, -3/+10I support Obama. Just thought i needed to say that before what I'm about to say.
Just because he is a hillary supporter doesn't make his point less valid. Could you say that Obama supporters' critiques about Mccain aren't valid because we support Obama? I don't agree with what the reporter asserted in the article but the fact that he supports Hillary seems completely irrelevant to me. - chatzimcfee, on 04/06/2008, -2/+9And the plot thickens!
- jeriqo, on 04/06/2008, -1/+7Of course you don't expect this kind of article from an Obama donnor.
I don't see anything wrong here. - Acewrap, on 04/06/2008, -2/+8No.
- feckineejit, on 04/07/2008, -0/+5The gall of you to say that people can't object to character attacks!
- santaliqueur, on 04/07/2008, -0/+5What were you saying? Oh who cares.
- sgtpppr, on 04/07/2008, -1/+6I cannot wait until this election is over. Digg has turned into a huge campaign platform. This of course was submitted by "weneedobama". I don't mind articles explaining a candidate's platform or ideas on a subject, but this is MORE mudslinging. Yes, if candidate A is playing dirty and candidate B decides to put the focus on candidate A being 'dirty', then both of them are mudslinging. This is seriously no better than a high school popularity contest. No one even cares who would be best for the country. It's basically 'my candidate versus your candidate'. Sometimes I wonder if this is about who's city's football teams best, who's dick is bigger, who can draw their name with piss the best in snow, or who's the best candidate for president.
- Uhave2laff, on 04/07/2008, -0/+4The reason it's a story is because Segal didn't disclose his prior donation to the Clinton campaign, which makes the whole article suspect. Because he "appears" to have a personal interest in Hillary, the article no longer belongs on the front page because it's not news anymore, it's op-ed. Also, Obama gave an interview to the Advocate last Fall so where does Segal get this "it's been 1,522 days" bit? And btw, Obama is the first candidate to buy advertising space in a LGBT publication, of which Segal will benefit from. C'mon people, check stuff out first.
- Metavirus, on 02/10/2009, -1/+5Incorrect, journalists disclose perceptible conflicts of interest all the time, such as when they serve on a politcal campaign, made donations, held fundrasers, etc.
- spokenorigami, on 04/06/2008, -0/+4Are you for real...?
- Monkeywithacold, on 04/07/2008, -1/+5You think digg will get any better once the election is over? If Obama doesn't win, we will see nothing but voter fraud headlines, if Obama does win it will be why Obama should have Bush arrested for 6 months. After that everyone will forget and start hating Obama because he is no longer trendy.
- Jevy14, on 04/06/2008, -0/+4I agree Killer, doesnt it make sense that someone who disagreed with obama, or felt somehow not served by obama would support another candidate. Of course he's a Clinton supporter, if he's a democrat, and believes what he says, than he wouldnt want to support obama now would he. The logic holes that Digg constantly supports is ridiculous...Hey everybody look at this, turns out that this guy who doesn't like obama, yeah he supports hillary that makes his argument invalid,a nd means that hillary is playing dirty tricks....come on people use some common sense.
(I am a strong PROponent of obama, I hope he wins. and am by no means endorsing the content of the gentlemans article, or believe that what he says is true.) - purzzzell, on 04/07/2008, -0/+4Good job hitting the big two (worthless) Anti-Obama troll talking points:
1: His middle name. Such a dumb unnecessary attack.
2: The Islamic heritage that doesn't exist. - nigel40, on 04/06/2008, -1/+4yeah, it's flaming.
- Aensland, on 04/07/2008, -0/+3Way to comment without actually knowing what his stand on it is.
- Aensland, on 04/07/2008, -0/+3Hmm, I thought it happened earlier, but I could've been mistaken. If they REALLY messed it up because of the prank then the laugh is on them.
- ngmcs8203, on 04/06/2008, -1/+4Obviously you did as little research as Segal. Here's a comment from the page that was sent to the author of the article.
//quote
No. 6 · KCG
Update 2: Finally, here is my last reply to Mark Segal, in response to his email to me:
Dear Mr. Segal,
I thank you for your reply email but it appears that you might have cut-and-pasted a reply to me from an email you wrote to someone else.
As I noted in my original email, I find it troubling that the article in question did not contain a disclosure that you, Mr. Segal, are a donor to the Clinton campaign. Disclosures such as this, when there is an actual or perceptible conflict of interest, are commonplace in journalism and routinely appear when a reporter has a particular tie to the subject matter of the article.
In addition, I take strong exception to this statement in your email:
A Candidate asking for our vote, must be willing to speak to our community, and not only at fund raisers where their are limited people and taking our dollars, but the full community. That can only truly be accomplished by doing what candidates do for every other community. speak to our community press.
This is both misleading and inaccurate, for two reasons.
Firstly, Senator Obama has spoken to millions of people, including a variety of audiences hostile to LGBT causes, in televised appearances at the Ebeneezer Baptist Church and Rick Warren’s church, about the damage that homophobia causes. I challenge you to research an article on any instance where Hillary Clinton has appeared in front of a hostile audience and spoken out on LGBT issues.
Lastly, you say that Obama “must be willing to speak to our community” and, in response, I can assure you that he is, in fact, speaking to our community. The gay ghettoization of the post-Stonewall era is steadily eroding, as evidenced by the straight gentrification of previously gay strongholds such as the Castro and West Hollywood. Part and parcel of this de-ghettoization is the diminished need and market for “gay only” media. When I found word of your article on Clinton and Obama, this was the first time that I — and most of my friends — had bothered to open a “gay publication” in over 10 years. Barack Obama speaks to each and every one of us because we are all, at our root, Americans. And when Barack Obama speaks to Americans, Gay Americans, and Transgendered Americans, he doesn’t need to do so through the mouthpiece of some myopic “gay publication”. He speaks to me through ABC News. He speaks to me through The Economist. And he speaks to me through his rallies and campaign emails.
I encourage you to, at the very least, print a correction to your article that points out your conflict of interest. Additionally, I encourage you to look beyond your small one-town paper and realize that gay people no longer rely on the “gay media”. To your point, you and uour ilk are NOT my community press and do not speak for millions of gays and lesbians across our country.
Your very truly,
//end-quote - fatTJ, on 04/07/2008, -0/+3I had a Clever comment thought out. But unfortunate circumstances (problems with my request) prevented me from posting it.
- Entroper, on 04/07/2008, -0/+3I think most journalists are probably supporting one of the candidates, and they don't need to disclose that in every piece they write. They should disclose if there's a real conflict of interest; for example, Mika Brzezinski from MSNBC frequently reminds viewers that she has relatives working for both the Obama and McCain campaigns.
- bjornski, on 04/07/2008, -0/+3You thought it was a good idea to reply to your own homophobic argument to appear that you had support for your bias? Do you not realize people can see your name, or did another of your "personalities" surface and take over?
Besides being racist and homophobic, you show yourself to be a moron. Do you have any other arguments besides "*****" and "*****"?
Good lord, after looking at your comment history, I see I'm wasting my time. It's obvious your account was meant for nothing but trolling and stirring up *****. Don't you have an epilepsy support forum to trash or something?
/buried, blocked, reported - NSResponder, on 04/07/2008, -0/+3I can't fathom why any gay rights advocate would support the Clintons. They had the chance to end discrimination against gays in the military, and they copped out. When Harry Truman ended racial segregation in the armed forces, he didn't wimp out, he said "I'm the commander in chief, and it's an order."
-jcr - duggdowncatisad, on 04/06/2008, -0/+3Who let Rush Limbaugh on digg? We're trying to have a serious conversation among liberal adults here.
- Mothrog, on 04/07/2008, -2/+4Holy crap! Someone who doesn't support Obama wrote a negative article about Obama? Holy *****! Boycott the Philly Gay News!
/sarcasm - yojiffyskippy, on 04/07/2008, -1/+3Let me get this straight. Somebody doesn't like Obama AND they like Clinton? Oh the horror! How dare them! What did you expect? Did you think and Obama donor would write a "hit" piece on Obama?
- purzzzell, on 04/07/2008, -3/+5the issue is this - you guys are commenting on an article - it's pretty safe to assume you have a bias, or consider that you may.
When a reporter writes something, it's appropriate to know where they're coming from. It's called journalistic integrity. An Obama supporter may say "hey, you need to pay attention to this community" whereas a clinton supporter may be saying "You haven't paid attention to this community yet, it's appalling, and b/c of that you suck."
Same article, different spin - part of journalistic integrity is avoiding spin, part of which is done by disclosing any personal biases, such as the one in this article. - GruntGrunt, on 04/07/2008, -1/+3If you would like to support Obama's campaign for presidency by donating anything you can. Go to http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/ ... and click on the Progress Thermometer to the right to donate.
- inactive, on 04/06/2008, -2/+4What a piece of ***** article, everyone who writes anti-Obama stuff is either pro-Hillary or McCain and it works the other way around too. Do you think that any of the people writing hit pieces on Hillary are for her? No, because that makes no sense. You suck at your job.
- slyzxx, on 04/07/2008, -1/+3I`m an obamanion at first but i don`t think u have the right to ask us to email him and harass the guy to change his article just because you did not agree with his article he has rights and he`s excessing them sorry to the digger but you fail
-
Show 51 - 100 of 134 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is