What is Digg?93 Comments
- blaze4metal, on 10/11/2007, -7/+101I like how we have to turn to foreign news sources to get reliable coverage of the debates.
- hoppdawg, on 10/11/2007, -2/+58
Seriously, ***** the American mainstream media. I can't wait for the next generation of broadband when iptv is standard and competition from start up news sources will be able to challenge the current status quo. - swr1ght, on 10/11/2007, -2/+49You joke about that, but I have been relying on the BBC and other international news stations for my news for years. CNN and FOX have no concept of journalistic integrity. Haven't for decades.
- Ghazi, on 10/11/2007, -3/+39And that will never change until our democracy is revamped. NPR had a segment on how you won't find this sort of problem in France for example. In France all the candidates, by law, are accorded the same amount of time on TV and radio regardless of how big/small their "chances" are.
Listen here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9692280
Or if you care to digg the story go here: http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/To_Revamp_U_S_Democracy_Look_to_France_NPR_Audio - CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -2/+29The article clearly says he is from Texas. I don't know if it has been changed or updated since it was originally posted, but if you look now it says "the congressman from Texas".
- CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -10/+35@Auerbeck
dugg down for believing that only American viewpoints are relevant. Since America has decided to make itself a global presence, American politics now have a global audience paying attention. I find personally that many non-Americans have a much better view of the big picture than many Americans do.
@phineous
I too would like to think that Kucinich and Paul still have an actual chance of winning.. especially in a day and age where people can get information they couldn't in the past. Keep in mind that the writer is trying to sound "realistic" and down to earth. My gripe with people who say things like "I like him, but he'll never win" is that they are saying it because it is their perception that other people won't vote for them and this influences their choice on whether to vote for them or not (everyone loves a winner...). It is this kind of thinking that allows people to brainwash themsselves, fall in line and keep the system in place. We need to rock the system and we have a year and a half to work with.
@Henvy1
dugg down for giving a damn what Fox News says. - hagbard72, on 10/11/2007, -6/+26You seem to be right, only actors and frauds seem to stand a chance in American politics. People with true ideological commitment like Mr. Paul don't stand a chance.
- bvnay, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19Oh come on BBC.....whatever happened about my man, Mickey Gravel! The man with big balls of steel and a heart of gold.
As I see it, he doesnt have a chance to win the presidential race. Most Americans are controlled by the mainstream media, and the way he is being shoved down the line in the presidential debates shows it. He is too good a man to be elected by the dumb voters to be the President. Unless ofcourse, more people start getting their news from the Internet. - CletusJones, on 10/11/2007, -2/+20Maybe we should all just move to a big empty state like Montana, declare our independence, and invite Ron Paul to be the first president.
Or, we can go out and vote, and tell people who might not know about him, slap a bumper sticker on our cars, anything. - phil.busch, on 10/11/2007, -6/+22Look, I am a HUGE fan of Ron Paul's message. I want him to win, but let's get real. The republican base of neocons and religious conservatives absolutely dispise his message. They will not give him the nomination, and he is only at 1% in the poles. Ron Paul may be popular here on digg and other spots on the internets... but I am going to go out on a limb and say most digg users are not aligned with the base of the Republican party.
Like I said... I would love nothing more than to be able to vote for Ron Paul in 2008. I just know is won't happen. - CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17The internet may be too young to have a major impact on the political landscape, but 10 years from now people 40-50 will have been using the internet for a huge chunk of their lives and the 18-40 crowd won't be able to remember how it was before the internet. So, if the winner of this election goes on to a second term, this may be the last major election that is controlled by mainstream media (TV, radio, newspaper). It really impresses the importance of things like net neutrality and freedom of speech, because if we let the corporations take over the internet now, the implications will be felt for generations. Anyhow... I'm getting off topic a bit... the point is, this is the beginning of the new wave in politics... it may not be enough for Paul or Kucinich, but it will probably be the foundation of their successors. So don't give up the good fight, and make sure to vote for a candidate who will vote down the Patriot Act and other freedom-limiting mechanisms.
- ganjadude4391, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17seriously its really a sad state of affairs when other countries (our allies even) are saying the things our networks SHOULD be saying
- InetRoadkill, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15//Who is BBC dependent upon for subsidy? Do their reporters have managers or editors?//
It is my understanding that the BBC is funded in a similar manner to PBS. It gets govt subsidies. The nice part is that the subsidies are provided with no strings attached. So the BBC is free to report on unpopular stories without fear of boycotts from sponsors or govt interference in editorial content.
Compare this to PBS whose funding was cut repeatedly by the Bushies in response to Sesame Street airing episodes sympathetic to aids patients and for other PBS news programs which failed to show the proper enthusiasm for Bush's policies.
News sources in this country really do suck. They're slow to take up a story and when they do, They water it down. The US media is easily intimidated by both the govt is supposed to watch and by commercial sponsors who don't like them to rock the boat. The US public bears much of the blame for this situation. We reward the media for mindless stories which drag on for weeks about O.J. Simpson, Jon Bonne, Anna Nicole, and Paris Hilton. No wonder why most of the US news is fluff anymore. - fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15"Bah! I used to think BBC news was a little more objective."
This isn't a normal BBC news story. Notice that the reporter referrers to himself in the first person, and voices many personal opinions. - jrsims, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16The offline polls are BS. They are selectively polling people who lean toward the mainstream candidates. This does two things:
1. Manufactures support for the big 3 candidates in either party
2. Manufactures a "just" cause to whittle the Ron Paul's (who do have huge followings) out of the MSM and make them appear irrelevant.
The offline polls are smear campaigns. Don't be fooled. - bsiviglia9, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14"Of course the debates have to be realistic, but one should perhaps have some sympathy for those trying to get their voices heard."
By "the debates have to be realistic" does BBC mean "the debates have to censor voices of candidates with which media-giant-owners-and-advertisers do not agree"? - HenvY, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15@Cannedmango
I don't care what fox news said, I was trying to illustrate that networks from both extremes of the political spectrum will all agree on this issue. I thought that was fairly obvious. - HenvY, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12You know, the first option is probably the best.
Trying to mess with the two party political structure - like trying to get ***** out of a rocking horse. - tizz66, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12You're a *****. If you think the BBC has shareholders, then you clearly have no basis whatsoever for the rest of your stupid rant. Go and do some research.
- hagbard72, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9I'm a Canadian, and here, its entirely possible for an unknown person to become Prime Minister, or an previously unknown party to eventually win the federal election (ie" Reform Party->Canadian Alliance ->Conservative Party), or provincial election (NDP). In the States, there seems to be no moves outside the main two parties, and its well known that third parties can't win...which seems to me a self-fulfilling prophecy. Seems to me, if enough decide to vote for the person that really represents their views, rather than the one they think has the best chance because he's the most mainstream (ie:bland) or "has a chance of winning", things might actually change for the better.
- joeydoo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9The BBC is funded by a compulsory/non-compulsory "tax". It's moderated by an impartial board who make it their job to remove the BBC's funding if there is anything even slightly outside the BBC's "charter". The BBC are the best in the world.. If the BBC has a scandal of, one example, their children's TV presenter being coked up and licking stripper snatch.... the BBC news pride themselves in offering the best coverage of the incident. If an executive is found doing something wrong... the BBC report it. Them NOT reporting such things... just wouldn't happen. THAT is why they are better than every other source, no other organisation could do that.... let alone take pride in it.
- CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11@HenvY
Sorry henvy, your post got in ahead of mine and I made a last second edit (that damned counter!)
But to be fair... of course Fox News is against Paul. Logically, Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch who makes a lot of money and garners a lot of power by being in bed with the Republicans. It's an arrangement that has worked out *very* well for Bush/Cheney Co. So naturally they'll want to keep that relationship by promoting candidates who will keep the status quo and will continue to relax the rules on media ownership. Ron Paul won't play that game, so he isn't supported by his supposed "base". - bsiviglia9, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10@hoppdawg: "I can't wait for the next generation of broadband when iptv is standard"
Will IPTV also be pOwned, controlled and "self-censored" by a handful of media-corporations (like TV, raido, and newspapers)? Is there a way that "The People" can keep control of it? - HenvY, on 10/11/2007, -13/+21LOL! Are you joking phineous?
I don't think a confident prediction that neither Paul or Kucinich will win the 2008 election is being biased - I think every person with half a brain at every news network in the world knows that neither of them stand a realistic chance. Fox don't think they will win, Al Jazeera don't think they will win. I'll leave it to you to work out why. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Limey - "a national epithet for the English coming from the historical British naval practice of supplying its sailors with lime juice to prevent scurvy."
What makes you think the editor is English? He could be any nationality, but he could also be Welsh, Northern Irish or Scottish and still be from the United Kingdom. - DogHumpsMonkey, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9"Or join the libertarian party so he doesn't have to run for the neo-con party. Forget about the candidates getting equal time the parties should get equal time."
You know, this "neo-con" party ***** gets pretty old. I'm a Republican and the neoconservative philosophy has no place in the party as far as I'm concerned. I think it's been made abundantly clear that the founding principles of the Republican party and that of the neoconservative movement are not one in the same. At least anyone that bothers to study up on such things should think it's rather clear. If you are just going to sit there and regurgitate whatever uninformed drivel you read on the net, then yes, you may well be ignorant enough to think that all Republicans are religious fundamentalist and neoconservatives. It's akin to me saying that the Democratic party is nothing but "moonbats" (or whatever dismissive nonsense is used by the ignorant on the right) or the "America-hating terrorist sympathizing party". That sound like an apt description of the Democratic party to you?
A little bit of history might help you fix your misconceptions. Talking to people might also help with that. I talk to plenty of people who, like myself, are not happy with the state of the Republican party and the way it's been co-opted, and are working to fix it. That's why my vote will be going for Dr. Paul, even if I have to write him in on the ballot come election day. It's my party just as much as any neoconservatives, and I want a candidate that represents the philosophy that the party was founded on. That represents the interests of those that adhere to that philosophy, and the interests of the citizens of this country regardless of party affiliation. Not the ambitions of a bunch of shortsighted megalomaniacs. - MaximumPig, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7What is Mike Gravel, chopped liver?
- tekz0r, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8"Will IPTV also be pOwned, controlled and "self-censored" by a handful of media-corporations (like TV, raido, and newspapers)? Is there a way that "The People" can keep control of it?"
Yeah, it's called Net Neutrality. - SpectralSounds, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11Dont ask me why, but I immediately thought of the S.S. Minnow... I dont even like Gilligans Island.
Ok, proceed to dig me down. - tehbored, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9They refer to him as "Mr Paul" even though he's a doctor. Just pointing it out.
- MichaelBradley, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Ron Paul is huge on the internet but i know alot of people IRL who had never heard of him. I try and tell everyone i can about him. I have him on my MySpace.. i have a bumper sticker on my back window of my car.. i have a pin i wear on my hoodie. I try to get his name out OFF the internet. This is what we ALL need to do. Tell your neighbors, your cubicle buddies, people in your class at school.. your bartender.. your waitress..."Hey you know Ron Paul?" Tell everyone !
The more we all work together, the better chance he has ! - fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Secession was tried once, and it didn't work out very well. I recommend the second option.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7I hope people think about the reasons for Ron Paul facing a media blackout. I saw the debate summary on CNN and despite owning their own polls he was apparently not worthy of a single mention, despite clips of Thompson and the like making it in.
The issue is Israel, pure and simple. No support for Israel, no media support. Ron Paul is not a Neo-con and is for an immediate withdrawal of troops from the Middle East, and no pre-emptive strikes on Iran. The Democrats have already shown their colours in not blocking funding for the Neo-cons. A Democrat will not end US involvement in the Middle East. Ron Paul will. - bsiviglia9, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7CannedMango wrote: "The internet may be too young to have a major impact on the political landscape, but 10 years from now people 40-50 will have been using the internet for a huge chunk of their lives..."
Is this why there's so much attention in the mainstream media about the "dangers of the internet"?
What did Dick Chaney mean by "controlling the international commons of the Internet" as prescribed in his "Project for a New American Century"? - bsiviglia9, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7@swr1ght: "I have been relying on the BBC..."
Is it true that the content on FOX and CNN are heavily "self-censored" due to tight managerial control by the owners and subsidy by the advertisers?
Who is BBC dependent upon for subsidy? Do their reporters have managers or editors? - buff01, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Excellent article, other than the part about non-MSM whores not being able to win. They can win, but it will take a lot of focused effort by those of us who care.
- sonofagunn, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7At CNN.com, you can go to their election center and pick who you thought won the Republican debate. Ron Paul is leading by a huge margin in the minds of CNN.com readers, yet I doubt you see the results publicized by CNN.
- fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8So, politicians should bend their ideals to fit whatever the voters want them to think, no matter what? Wow, I wouldn't want to live in a place where politicians did that. Oh, wait...
- polyGone, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4" I hope you can come on, as a tutorial of what it means to be free" -- Tucker Carlson
- widman, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6@Ghazi
Not just France. Many other countries too.
Another thing is compulsory voting. I can't believe people in the US still think it's a bad idea. - sathias, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@CannedMango
Don't forget that the middle aged people of today were once the Woodstock generation, possibly more free-thinking and rebellious than people today. When todays internet-savvy youth get to that age they might possibly have a mortgage and family to worry about, and become more conservative just like their parents did. - sunprema, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5RON PAUL SHOULD WIN
RON PAUL SHOULD WIN
RON PAUL SHOULD WIN
RON PAUL SHOULD WIN
RON PAUL SHOULD WIN
RON PAUL SHOULD WIN
.... - Palmetto, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I don't get this voting for who can win crap.
Sometimes you have to do what is right... because it is right.
In the end, you have to be able to live with your conscience.
If one votes for the mainstream democrats or republicans, one is part of the problem.
One is socialist, the other fascist.
If you want Freedom and a Republic, you have to vote Ron Paul, Libertarian or Constitution Party.
I'm glad that toward the end of 1776 Washington's men didn't bail on him. The ones that stayed on carried the fight to the
enemy and took Trenton, embattling the fledgling nation to fight on.
We must do what is right, even though we may not win.
That is how we teach our children, and what makes future generations look up to us.
That is how we preserve Freedom. - kd1s, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5The American MSM has been for the most part a fourth estate of government since George W. Bush took office. And they love pandering to the Christian Right since they make the most entertaining programming.
- Yeeeaaaahhhhh, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@ Auerbeck
Now theres a cracking example of the arrogance displayed by the few that unfairly tarnishes a country i really digg. - notque, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Everyone with money is quite frightened of Gravel if they've heard of him. We have to keep pressing the issue, send comments in to the story.
Don't allow us to become marginalized further. - elioty, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Ok... well someone mentioned Ron Paul, so I just need to take a moment to vent. Like everywhere else, he seems to have a ton of support.. I'm not sure why. For example, on teh Facebook voting app he has more than 40% of the vote! (http://www.voteonthebook.com/candidates/view/Ron_Paul).
I do like Ron Paul, but I'm just wondering if all of this fanfare of his on the internet is going to translate into real votes when election time comes. - BrandonMills, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6"It includes Ron Paul"
Ya just couldn't leave well enough alone. You ALMOST made a Digg post about politics that didn't have Ron Paul's name plastered all over it like an advertisement.
*sigh* - gmoney1, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5I am usually a big fan of the BBC, all of their news, etc. is usually great, but I felt this article was half-assed. He only talked about two candidates. Thats hardly anything. I just believe he could have went much more into things, and had more candidates to talk about.
- spartan777, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2no, its not that at all. its that he's (kucinich) just an unrealistic idealist with stars in his eyes. As romantic and noble as it seems, it is just quixotic. Nothing good comes from these people when given real power.
-
Show 51 - 89 of 89 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