What is Digg?80 Comments
- FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+93The most ignored story that irritated me was when Michael Badnarik and David Cobb were arrested. Do those names ring any bells to you? No...? What if I told you they were PRESIDENTIAL candidates? What if I told you they weren't just rinky dink idiots... but the Presidential Canidates for the 3rd AND 4th largest political parties in the country, the Libertarians, and the Green Party? Now, what if I add, that they were arrested simply for trying to SERVE a LEGAL ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE for being illegally blocked from participating in the National Presidential Debates by the Rebublicans and Democrats who have stolen control of the Commission on Presidential Debates from the League of Women voters.
More Info:
http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/35752/
http://www.boingboing.net/2004/10/09/both_presidential_ca.html
http://www.opendebates.org/theissue/whatisthecdp.html - Ystig, on 10/12/2007, -6/+44Stories like this need emotional meat to them if they're going to get aired. And the fact of the matter, is, a story which reads "Iraqi detainees die in torture-related incidents" simply won't get play for its own sake for one simple reason (and hear me out on this):
Brown people don't matter.
This is the reality of the mentality which is selecting stories and treatment of those stories in Iraq and Afghanistan, whoever you want to blame for it. And it operates on such a scale, ignoring vast, horrific suffering on the part of civilians in the Middle East and South Asia, that it bears a good deal of consideration. Why are we able to put on blinders so easily, and not mind that we're doing so?
Mind you, not all stories of attrocities suffered by Iraqis are omitted from the headlines. The Lindy England story was an exception. Why? Let me theorise: because it had a human component. And why did it have a human component? That's right: because two of the key personalities immediately associated with the story were white. And white people matter. Whether they were the perpetrators or the victims itself makes no matter. There was a sensational act (grotesque acts of torture), it was caught on film, and there were white people in the film.
Horrors happen every day in Iraq. And they don't matter. And they don't get aired, even when they are on film, and even when they're right there. It seems the only case you'll see a story make the headlines is when the perpetrator or victim, one or the other, is white. We in the first world West need to ponder the scope of our capacity for compassion. - jgo6d, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33The article provides sources. What do you provide? Rhetoric?
What a joke. - DFrag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29This should be front paged every day. ***** like this shouldn't be swept under the rug.
- Scik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29People may not have seen it, I hadnt, and its scary/good enough to be front paged again.
- ShagNASTY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25Take a look at the main page on CNN.com and see what they think is "headline" news. In most cases it's Paris Hilton.
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23I remember this link, saw it over on Shoutwire. This one's my particular favorite.
"U.S. Operatives torture detainees to death in Afghanistan and Iraq"
That rough interrogation, right? That hazing? Anderson Cooper 360 briefly (too briefly) covered the subject of detainee deaths due to torture but they dropped it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15This story has just taken the top ten from project censored's top 25:
http://digg.com/world_news/Top_25_Censored_Media_Stories_of_2007
It should be dugg down as a dup, but it's an important issue that has finally made it to the front-page. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Disturbing and fascinating. The majority of the UK public seem more interested in stories about vacuous "celebrities" than the increasingly totalitarian behaviour of our government.
- Itkovian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Of course it is. Don't you just love your new freedom? The freedom to choose which of your tapped phone lines to use, or the freedom to choose what old freedom you will give up next?
- zeptobyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Media outlets are corporations as much as any other corporations are. They exist to earn money, NOT to provide information. They earn their money BY providing information, but they don't necessarily feel obligated to report the most about what's most important. Only what's most interesting and will get them more interest and money. The headlines are what's "important"; rather, they're what's "hot right now".
- h4ppydotcom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10When floating ice melts, the water level doesn't change (try experimenting with a glass with a couple of ice cubes in it, marking the water level before and after the ice melts). But it does change the temperature of the sea and ratio of fresh water (that was in the ice) to salt water, and this disrupts all sorts of major climate things.
When ice that was on the land (Greenland and Antarctica) melts, water that was not in the sea before is now in the sea - hence raising water levels.
If you haven't had a chance yet, I'd recommending taking the time to see 'An Inconvenient Truth' - it does a good job of explaining some of these things, even if it is a little light on suggestions on what to actually *do* about the problems. - vudicarus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12"Look at their records sometime and you will see that public broadcasters DO make profits."
please provide a link for verification. otherwise i say bs. npr is a "privately supported, not-for-profit membership organization...On average, public radio stations (including NPR Member stations) receive the largest percentage of their revenue (34%) from listener support, 24% from corporate underwriting and foundations, and 13% from CPB allocations." (from their website)
please check your facts - Itkovian, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11I saw an interview with Al Gore this week. In contrast to Dubya, he seemed very coherent, gave well thought-over answers, and generally sounded like somebody who is at least a bit competent. I still cannot figure out how over 40% of the people who voted could choose Bush over Gore.
- blee24, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@ilyag:
Could you specifically mention a few of the articles that you think aren't "properly cited, verified, or followed up on"? Many of them are cited by sources that do, in turn, do a good job of researching facts. Mother Jones, The NewStandard, and Z Magazine are not well known to most people, but IMO do "proper" journalism.
When you say you agree that "these types of stories" shouldn't be reported, do you mean that many/most of these specific stories are unsupported, or is there just one or two of these 10 that fall into that category? - misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I don't know if I'd call it "censored", but the SPIN the telcoms push on the issue of Net Neutrality certainly deserves its place as #1 on this list. The more I read about this issue and see the comments of people like Ed Whitacre and Ted Stevens, the less respect I have for anyone associated with these companies. The policitians are bought and sold by the lobbyists, who are paid by the telcoms pushing for their own profit at the expense of the American people, ignoring what would really be best for expanding technology and keeping the internet equal for everyone.
- sobriquet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Im wracking my brain trying to think of a non-profit media outlet, and can't.
Does one exist? - pgoetz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@RayZorbacK
Wow, who knew that ordinary Iraqis were doing this well (aside for the 650,000 +/- 200,000 that have violently killed, of course). All the bad news must be the distortions of the liberal media we here so much about.
One point that people seem to have forgotten about Iraq is that Iraq was a secular muslim society BEFORE we invaded; it's actually more religiously restrictive now. And if it hadn't been for years of sanctions, the Iraqi people would have been doing this well or better without the help of our bombs, M-16's and guided missiles upsetting their apple cart.
Get thee back to the dunce corner, young man, for further analysis. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"or the freedom to choose what old freedom you will give up next?"
I don't think we have much choice on that one. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@razorback - why don't you check your facts before you go pointing fingers. The accusations against Reid were debunked and the author shown to be a conservative shill.
Read and learn dont just repeat your talking points.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200602130005 - jgo6d, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15"Sources like buzzflash.com, GlobalResearch.ca, Mother Jones.
You are correct - what a joke!!"
You're right. I forgot that lesser-known websites should be automatically discredited.
It would be naive not to be skeptical about these stories without reading them and checking their facts. It's also naive to assume they are incorrect just because it isn't coming from the mainstream media.
Don't insult me with your rhetoric just because you don't want to take the time to analyze the information. - h4ppydotcom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Have you seen the first (two) episodes of Season 5 of Spooks? It covers just this topic, albeit slightly more in the style of '24' rather than the usual 98%-believable Spooks way.
- foamweapons, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It's great this story made the front page of Digg, but they should link to Project Censored at the top of their page. I've been reading Project Censored reports every year for the last 3 years. They need the recognition.
www.fair.org also does great work exposing "unfit for print" news and they rarely get any media attention. People quote their studies all the time too. Anyone who gets their news from TV will never hear of organizations like these... we definitely need more people reading Digg, less people reading newspapers that regurgitate AP press releases. - webcrumb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"they're not perfect, but the BBC do it differently than the commercial operations: http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/"
Since Hutton they've been castrated. Say hello to a new era of Burlesconi/Murdoch-style news - h4ppydotcom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5bloggers :)
- alexmat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7npr and pbs
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The UK should be worried about crap like this:
http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Schoolgirl_arrested_for_refusing_to_study_with_non_English_pupils
/not my subby, just needs to be seen - vudicarus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7alright dude. *ding* now why don't you go eat your hotpocket.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@razorback - Are you paid to hang out on Digg and bash Reid? Its your second post in this story that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject but bashes Reid.
Again your story debunked.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200602130005 - Kibitz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's amazing to see Digg users bending backwards to discredit these stories as "poorly sourced" when a miniscule amount of actual research will show that they're all very well sourced. The reason these stories don't make the mainstream is because they undermine power. This is painfully obvious, and it's very interesting to see the natural defense mechanism of "NOT TRUE NOT TRUE" kick in when peoples' worldview is challenged.
What's funny is that it also illustrates the great journalistic double-standard. Stories which support power need virtually no sources or evidence to back them up, while stories that run against power need reams, and reams of evidence to back them up. So, for example, when The New York Times runs an article about how the US is committed to establishing a democracy in the Iraq, it doesn't need to provide any evidence or proof that the US is ACTUALLY doing this. It just takes the government's word for it like a good newspaper is supposed to. But if you try to call a spade a space and run an article arguing the US has no real interest in establishing a democracy in Iraq, suddenly you need documentation to the sky before people believe you.
I agree that in EVERY case you should provide tons of evidence to back your story up, and I think mainstream media is insanely hypocritical in this regard. - bigdaftdave, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6they're not perfect, but the BBC do it differently than the commercial operations: http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/
- jgo6d, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6A very sound rebuttal. The "Stop picking on us!"-argument is always effective.
- ScornForSega, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"in many areas Women can walk down the street now with out threat of rape or being called dogs, etc... There are all kinds of WONDERFUL things also happening over there that have not been shown to us over here."
The fact that you view that as a wonderful thing scares me. I don't know about you, but I think I'd much rather walk down the street and get called a dog than to go take a dump in my bathroom and reunite with excrement right outside my front door....
but that's just me. - iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"That rough interrogation, right? That hazing? Anderson Cooper 360 briefly (too briefly) covered the subject of detainee deaths due to torture but they dropped it."
Abu graib has been on the front page of the NYT more than any story in the last 30+ years. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5yeah you get the same thing when a website doesn't support a different browser like "opera" or some other kind. Somehow theres a "conspiracy" against users of the said browser, when really it just wasn't covered.
- honkeyd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Razorback.
You just complained because people want you to provide facts to back up your comments. Why would that be? I am going to guess it is because you base your stance on what you want to believe, and disregard any fact that gets in the way.
It's OK though, you've been trained to think that way. - dissident0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Im wracking my brain trying to think of a non-profit media outlet, and can't.
Does one exist?"
http://www.democracynow.org/
http://newstandardnews.net/ - Fastfwd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Great article Diggers! This is one of those articles out there that I would have never run across without Digg. Very informative.
- andrewrama, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What about the whistle blowing or the article on Pentagon papers? Those seem fair reporting topics and not so difficult for a journalist with the backing of a reputable news network asking questions. So it would seem as long as the President and his advisers simply refuse to acknowledge or flat out deny the accusation the issue suddenly becomes fodder, based solely on the fact that the very sources aren't coughing up any information. Seems quite convenient for those whom wish to keep things from the public.
Also, I've turned on the tube to find the news models making totally outrageous claims on little or no fact at all. It would seem that a lot of these news 'reporters' are simply jumping to conclusions and when the facts due come out, most of the time being completely off center from the truth, they retract the story in marquee form like the supposed Ramsey Killer.
If people are seen as groundless psycho conspiracy theorist for simply bringing to light issues which need to be exposed as truth or false, then lets not just ask questions at all. Let's see how far that gets us.
- esourcemag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2America... f*uck yeah!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uao99SN2x_E&mode=related&search= - honkeyd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Anyone who has a problem with this story, should read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_of_silence - honkeyd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@Razorback.
Good stuff, thanks for the link.
Unfortunately, it seems that I have been trained also. I apologize for the stupid comment. - andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Media outlets are corporations as much as any other corporations are. They exist to earn money, NOT to provide information. They earn their money BY providing information, but they don't necessarily feel obligated to report the most about what's most important."
Or rather, they don't feel obligated to report what socialists and communists think is most important, because ordinary people don't give a *****.
News organizations make money by giving people information they're likely to be interested in. Not very many people are interested in far-left propaganda. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5OMG I thought the North American Man Boy Lover Association was bypartisan. Maybe it's that democrats want a monopoly on Gay's as well.
- Jawood, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Some of the headlines that I thought are pretty neutral:
Halliburton charged with selling nuclear technology to Iran
- - If these charges are true, then there is some serious problems with the way our country handles weapons sales. This should be concern for us all.
Federal whistleblower protection in jeopardy
-- Considering the above story, this will make it secret. I don't know about you, But if the Pentagon, or our Government for that matter, can operate in complete secrecy, our Republic and our Freedoms would be jeopardized.
And if our troupes, my friends and family, are going to be sent into Iran to destroy some nuclear devices that one of our companies sold to Iran (legally or illegally) I'd be really pissed.
Also, considering the corruption in our Government (they are beholden to the lobbyists - I've heard this accusation from all side of the political spectrum), we REALLY need the transparency.
Pentagon exempt from Freedom of Information Act
-- See above.
World Bank funds Israel-Palestine wall
-- Alrighty, then. That's Irael's problem, not ours or anyone elses. There's folks out there who really need the help.
Expanded air war in Iraq kills more civilians
-- I don't see how anyone, on any side, can condone this. The Iraq war is also a PR war. By killing innocents, we're doing the same thing that the terrorists are doing, from a PR perspective. Remember, when Mahmoud sees his little kid killed, he doesn't sit back and say, "The Americans did it because they're making us free! It's too bad my kid got caught in the cross fire, but that's the price I have to pay for my Freedom!"
*****! He's thinking, "Death to America! Where's that Al-Qaeda training camp again?!?!"
These stories concern all of us. And to just label them "Liberal" or "Communist" or whatever, does this country a disservice. It's our job, as the electorate and citizens, to be informed and to keep an eye on our Government. That's how you fight for Freedom! - firekhan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0*YSTIG*
What u so eloquently put into writing is something Ive always wanted to express but not been able to.
Keep on writing ! - myfish8me, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"In Detroit, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor.."
hehe. diggs. hehe. - andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3So basically, these people are pissed because the propaganda that appeals to socialists and communists didn't make the front pages.
- wintermte, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Gee, I wonder what the author of this lists political bent is? I mean these may or may not be important, but they sure are leaning pretty far left...
Oh wait a minute, now I'm going to get undug, I said something unpopular again. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8I actually agree that the reason many of these types of news stories aren't covered is because the sources aren't properly cited, verified, or followed up on. The publication of such far-reaching and potentially devastating stories requires that journalists pay EXTRA attention to the truth behind what their sources are saying. It doesn't surprise me that most of these stories were published in no-name magazines and newsletters by "underground" journalists who clearly have a political agenda beyond just reporting the facts, and who may or may not even have any education in journalism or respect for journalistic ethics.
You will find this exact type of "journalism" in supermarket tabloids. Their sources are usually either anonymous (so you can't prove whether the source is real or fake) or, in the case of science-related articles, the source is some dingbat "scientist" who has been thoroughly discredited by the established scientific community time and time again.
Now, please understand, sometimes tabloid reporting DOES uncover things that really are true. However, the fact that the reporting is usually not properly conducted should make anyone skeptical of their validity until the story is verified and re-verified by other journalists and publications.
Oh, and I'm not speaking about EVERY story cited in this article. Some of them really are factual and correct. However, to believe many others, we have to trust the writer who's reporting them... and I will continue to be skeptical of "journalists" who care more about their political agenda than about uncovering the facts, especially when those facts may disprove their pre-conceived assumptions. -
Show 51 - 77 of 77 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