What is Digg?78 Comments
- MrBabyMan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28THERE'S your October surprise, just a few days late.
- Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Like we don't know what the verdict is going to be anyway.
The date it's proclaimed is of little consequence to me. - TinMan, on 10/12/2007, -9/+25because it is blatantly obvious.
- scbysnx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20honestly I would normally agree but this is crap scare tactic and anyone who doesn't see it is an idiot. Bush isn't a republican he's an Orwellian dictator and any republican who supports him is blind deaf and dumb
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Theyre not speculating because, as was already said, ITS BLATANTLY OBVIOUS. Its been 3 years since we caught him and the day of his verdict is the midterm elections? You know what the chances of that happening are? LESS THAN ONE IN A THOUSAND.
- Dgen_X, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9You do have a point Wavey...and get a + from me for it
But it is hard to believe that something like this isn't going to influence the election, seriously...news from Iraq that isn't negative...it's going to blind a few people from what has been happening over there recently - InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Saddam's trial is just a show trial. I don't think anyone really expected it to be anything else.
The sad thing is that the US is committing the same atrocities that saddam was accused of. The more things change, the more they stay the same. - Herald42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Carapi --
Wow. You really haven't paid attention to the news lately, have you? Rick Santorum, a Senator, said that the Iraq war was "drawing the eye of Sauron" away from the U.S. You know, the out-of-place reference that actually didn't make sense. My comment was a jab at that. The Saddam verdict coming out to draw our attention from the debacle in Iraq intended to draw other people's attention away from... our government?
You didn't get the memo, apparently. - omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7In looking at facts as to why the Saddam trial may have been postponed, there is certainly speculation – it is a forward-looking statement. But it is fact-based. They are not making accusations of bias, and they are not determining motive, which is consistent with their mission statement. They are simply sending up a warning flag if the Saddam verdict comes in before Election Day. Also, you are confusing the organization's mission statement, which avoids looking at media bias and motive, as opposed to politically motivated actions on the part of the government. They are two different things. Methinks it is you who are missing the point.
- flamingmb, on 10/12/2007, -15/+19god I hate all you ***** who try to spin this around and bitch about "the main stream media! oh noes!" ***** you, you know they ***** plan this *****.
- fatmax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@ dancpsu
Why always left vs right? Get over it already and realize it is a ploy to divide and conquer... - Herald42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Actually, Carapi, since you did miss the memo, I figured it'd be best to actually provide the source, rather than simply assume that you were just here to flame people, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you honestly didn't know what I was referring to.
It's previously digested, both by digg-ers, and by Stephen Colbert, but it's either that or pull it from one of the sites that referenced it on Google, including such traditionally liberal sources as the Huffington Post, Crooks and Liars, Thinkprogress, and Netscape News. I figured that you'd prefer it from here.
http://digg.com/videos_comedy/Colbert_Breaks_Down_Santorums_Lord_of_the_Rings_Analogy - JamesK, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@mbthompson
The US has no power to influence the Iraqi Government? That's naive. - diggreader1963, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4that's true. And Ted Kennedy protested the HW Bush admin at the time because of the atrocities. If I recall, Kennedy tried to block some HW Bush appointees. Something like that.
- Wavey, on 10/12/2007, -11/+15You missed the point I was making: Despite their claims to the contrary, Media Matters speculates on motive.
- Wavey, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11So, what all you people that are digging me down, and digging TinMan up are telling me is: It is OK for a media outlet to claim one thing and do another. It is OK for an organization to operate under the pretense of solely reporting facts and never trying to determine bias or motive, and then turn around and do exactly what they claim not to do. That is, as long as they come to a conclusion that you like.
If a conservative organization -- or even Media Matters, as far as that goes -- happened to post an article that came to a speculative conclusion that did not support your political stance, you guys would digg it down in a millisecond. You know you would. - vvvv, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Has the date for the verdict's release been set to provide maximum political benefit for the administration and congressional Republicans?"
Probably. Big woop. We're still going to lose the damn war at the rate we're going. - quarck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Saddam is history anyway. The current situation in Iraq isn't caused by Saddam. There are many players over there now, each defending their own interests: Kurds want autonomy or a Kurdish state.
Shiites want to hit Sunni, Sunni want to hit Shiites, both want to hit US and other foreign troops. Throw Al-Quaida and other foreign jihadists into the fray for the icing on the cake.
Conclusion: It doesn't matter at all if Saddam is hanged or not. The world, and especially the part called Iraq, will just keep spinning around mistrust, violence and war. Thus, if people in the US think that the death of Saddam will make a difference concerning the safety of the troops: afraid not. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"the willful ignorance is coming from the people who act shocked that this kind of thing happens."
So you're quite happy to be manipulated?
Guess that's why you have such a ***** government. - MidnightWatcher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Saddam will be found.... not guilty by lack of evidence.
- lukehh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5who knows - maybe he'll be found not guilty. That would be an utter failure for the Admin...and help change the house...
(how twisted is politics?!) - omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4They're not saying for certain what the motive is; they're only giving you the facts that led them to ask the question. They report; you decide. Sound familiar?
- Herald42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Priceless --
I don't know who peed in your corn flakes, but I didn't even respond in the series of posts you kindly told me to "STFU" in. Apparently I missed the memo where I said something worth meriting that response, and your post didn't exactly shed any light on the matter, much less contribute to the conversation in any meaningful manner. In fact, the only thing I did regarding this entire subject is to liken the idea that this was concocted deliberately to give people a political edge with an analogy that was not well-thought out nor well-reasoned, and did not make any clear point. In doing so, I poked a hint of fun at both sides of the debate. Of course, looking at your other posts, you don't exactly contribute to discussions to respond to -- I seem to have found one reading, simply: "p double o p ding poop ding," so I could very well be overvaluing your opinion in asking you for your reasoning. - volcompimp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Benefit the Republicans? Ha! I can't wait to hear the exact opposite from the media when the verdict ends up being very disappointing and the Democrats own in the elections.
- Wavey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yep, speculation and bias runs rampant in today's media, unfortunately. Opinion bleeds into News far too often.
Like I said elsewhere here, any article from ANY site that has a one-sided purpose -- be it ThinkProgress, Media Matters, RushLimbaugh.com, Townhall.com, whatever -- should be placed into Political Opinion, not Political News. Of course, I know digg is a free-for-all and of course has no neutral editor to make this type of call, as news organizations do. (And today's editors are not neutral enough, but that is another story.) - djSyndrome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The sad thing is that the US is committing the same atrocities that saddam was accused of. "
Not true. Instead of gassing the Iraqi population, we're using low-yield nukes instead. Progress! - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The real October surprise will be when Bush waves his magic fairy wand and peace descends upon the enchanted kingdom of Mesopotamia.
- mhearne, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Of course we know what the verdict is going to be. Remember the day they pulled Saddam out of his hole? All the "newscasters" made the same remark: "He looks just like a homeless man".
Don't forget who created the homeless population, and have kept them where they are for the past quarter century.
What a load of crap. He's going to be hanged and you know it. Hell, he's already been hanged, it's just a matter of procedure now.
The same two families have been running this country for way too many years. Nepotism should be outlawed in the United States, and the Constitution should be restored. - omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4You're not reading the full sentence: "As opposed to other media monitors, Media Matters focuses solely on fact-based items, never trying to determine bias, which looks at motive." Media Matters is a media monitor, and when it monitors the media, it does not look at bias or motive; it only fact-checks. If it's looking at potential government actions, and there is a potential for conflict of interest, of course motive has to be questioned; it's only fair. If we didn't question government's motives and accepted them only as pure we wouldn't be responsible members of society.
But all this is beside the point that you're focusing on one word in a Wikipedia article. Media Matters' real mission statement can be found here: http://mediamatters.org/about_us - omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Dude, you may have have quoted the whole sentence, but you're insisting on only one word in that sentence: motive. Not only are you ignoring the context of the sentence, but you're also ignoring the grammatical construction of the sentence itself: "...bias, which looks at motive." The sentence doesn't say that Media Matters never looks at motive; it's saying that it avoids making claims about media bias because motive is difficult to prove. But it seems your argument is mainly a semantic one since you continue to ignore the larger ethical issues at stake here.
Edit: And the moment you have any liberal misinformation to point out, Digg your own article about it instead of hating on this one. Agenda or not, the facts are there. - omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Again, they are not speculating on media bias or motive. They are pointing to the control the government has over the Iraqi courts to be able to influence the outcome of the election. That is a valid concern. Their mission statement only says they don't engage in accusations of media bias. This is an ethical question of conflict of interest within the government itself, not the media. It may or not materialize, but Media Matters is certainly putting out a fair warning.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3the media always speculates
i think they dont do enough speculation or investigation.
how many times have we heard about the vaious democratic cannidates for president and speculation over different match ups.
And how about in the clinton admin when sandy berger disapeared wwith those documents, or when vince foster commited suicide.
They also speculate on the motives and things everytime ossama comes out with a tape, when ever iran leader says stupid crap, or kim jung il launches a missle.
Besides for annoucing the date of the trial, The whole thign is speculation. It is more an opinion piece. which i myself speculated was timed for the elections when i posted a digg about the postponement.. at the time they did not set a date.
I also posted a digg on this subject when the judges first postponed the trial, and if you read my first comments, you will see i speculated the exact same thing.. i even made some of the same points. - InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3They did more than turn a blind eye. HW Bush waved the state dept restrictions on the materials used to make the chemical weapons that were used to gas the Kurds and the Iranians. The reason was that they realized that Iraq was in danger of losing the war to Iran and wanted to tip the balance back towards the Iraqis, but not so far that Iraq would win. The goal was to keep both sides in a stalemate thus preserving the status-quo balance of power in the middle east.
The Kurds were gassed because they were supporting the Iranians in exchange for independence from Iraq after the war. - diggreader1963, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I think the timing of the verdict works to the Democrats' advantage, but only slightly. Remember, Saddam is being tried for crimes he committed in the 1980's, on Ronald Reagan's watch. Gassing of the Kurds happened at a time when Reagan and George H.W. Bush essentailly turned a blind eye to it.
Also remember that there were no WMD's found in Iraq. Bush's main argument for the war turned out to be false, and Saddam's trial has nothing to do with the reason for Bush's invasion. - mhearne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2On top of all the rest of the propaganda, whenever there is a major election, my inbox, as well as every group on usenet is flooded with political *****.
They at least need to stay out of my inbox. Why is it that I can put my phone on the "No Call List" but not my inbox?
There's a problem on the Internet all right, and it's the politicians. - omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"They claim" – I must point out once again that you are citing a Wikipedia article and not Media Matters' official mission statement. They are using facts to make a case, which you can say is biased or not. But they are not making an absolute claim of bias or making an absolute determination of motive; they are simply pointing out a potential for conflict of interest in the government that the media ought to watch out for. This is not even a political consideration so much as it is an ethical one.
I understand your distaste for one-sided organizations, but that does not mean that one should automatically reject their claims as biased, especially when there is extensive factual citation in the article itself. I also understand your distaste for opinion pieces being placed in the news category, but news analysis articles fall under the news section of newspapers, so they can certainly go in the news section on Digg. It's a fine line, and your call to make. But opinion pieces being placed in the news category are nothing new, and there have certainly been worse offenders than this. - omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No objection that many take opinion to be their own version of the truth. The late Senator Patrick Moynihan said "People are entitled to their own opinion, but not their own set of facts." More and more these days people are choosing their own set of facts, which does in some ways leave us worse off than the days of the partisan press. But I'll take facts from wherever I can get them.
- TheThirdWheel, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Of course it's done on purpose, politicians do it every election cycle and they will continue to so stop acting like you just uncovered a new secret plot.
Drega, the willful ignorance is coming from the people who act shocked that this kind of thing happens. - fatmax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Timing is impeccable..
And I speculate. That if the party the shadow gov wants in power doesn't make it.. Iran will launch a nuke into the homeland killing thousands.. Saddam will be forgotten and a new bogyman on a stick will be waived in front of us.
We were never at war with Eur-asia. It has always been East-asia. - omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bias is hard to filter no matter what an organization's allegiances, and agreed that analysis can sometimes be too much based on opinion. But back in the day, the press began as a vehicle for partisan viewpoints, and readers were trusted to pick out the truth from in between the opposing sides. It seems we might be returning to that time.
- trueking7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is not surprising in the least. Anyone who follows the news, I'm sure, is aware of GOP's media manipulations.
- proton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1mhearne: "War" is more than just a legal term.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The GOP has no stable ground to stand on.
They are desperately trying to cling to their power-grip, but people are in need of a change.
They don't want change, that is why most of GOP ads are not filled with intellectual content, but ***** to try and smear the other person. That is why they resort to cheap tactics to trick people into this false sense of fear if a GOP were to be replaced by "terrorist loving liberals" (aka anyone who is not a neocon).
The proof is right in front of your face. What, you want a document outlining every step? Here, "Every election that has passed, a bombshell drops close to the last second in an effort to sway public opinion." There.
Sorry, but post-elections, these manipulative ***** are outta here and we're taking this country back. - mhearne, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2That's because Congress has not issued a Declaration of War since WWII. It isn't a war, it's a whim.
- Wavey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yes, any such articles coming from one-sided sites with a stated (or hidden) agenda -- such as Townhall, ThinkProgress, MediaMatters, Rush Limbaugh's site, and so on -- should really be posted to Political Opinion, not Political News.
- priceless721, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ omaryak & herald 42
STFU! - priceless721, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1strangely i can fake being eloquent too go sit in your ivory tower you WOW nerd and stick a thumb in your ass. if your mom yells to you about your grilled cheese being done then try to be nice and tell you are in a flame war with a guy on the internet and its real important to you. You people can't EVER say anything clever or funny all you do is talk down to other people i know your kind and yes i am being a prejudiced bigot about it. so ***** what if i said poop poop ding ding it may have been funny you take it out of context perhaps. why did you choose that and not something else i said oh yeah thats right u r uncreative as ***** just take this ***** so personally that you go and read all my comments and make comments on them how ***** sad are you really.
i do wish pain upon you i hope you cut yourself and cry to some avenged sevenfold and try to suck you own dick and choke, eloquent enough for you ***** off and get cancer and die in a fire you *****. P DOUBLE O ***** P SUCK MY DICK POOP DING DING! - Wavey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Point taken on the Wikipedia article, but I must point out once again that even in their mission statement -- and also in promotional materials I had seen for the site in years past, sent to the media -- they state that their purpose is simply to report conservative misinformation. Yet what they are doing here goes beyond that. They are not reporting conservative misinformation -- they are digging up *information* -- then making a speculative guess at what they consider to be the conclusion. That is the crux of my complaint. They are still claiming to do one thing yet doing another.
And I am sorry, but coming from 23 years experience in the media, I can safely say that any article that comes from a site such as Media Matters is going to be tainted by bias, in one form or another. It may be subtle, such as in the phrasing of words, or the decisions as to what to report and what not to report, or the positioning of articles on the page, or the depth and length of an article as opposed to another, or the chosen order of its paragraphs, even. Or it may be more blatant. But it is always there to an extent. - TheThirdWheel, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4The people in Guantanimo have no free will, you just have to get to the airport earlier and use your cell phone if you're worried about your call being monitored.
BTW I hope that Bu$h thing doesn't catch on, the whole Micro$oft thing is beyond annoying. -
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