What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by AVG
Windows 7 Needs An Extra Layer of Security view!
free.avg.com - AVG Anti-Virus Free 9.0 works with Windows 7, to provide the best protection against web threats.
158 Comments
- Crass22, on 10/12/2007, -18/+158Dont hate the media. Become the media.
- rubored, on 10/12/2007, -16/+153***** the media...
- CloakandSwagger, on 10/12/2007, -19/+110"***** the media"
No.
***** the corporate handlers of the media.
There are good journalists in the media doing their jobs, but getting shut down and/or marginalized by corporate management. That is the problem. - kindernacht, on 10/12/2007, -6/+82dugg for a good find, i love when people point out when the media does stupid things like this.
wonder what olbermann thought about this??.... - jasonuher, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33There never was another poll, this was /always/ the poll. People like our good friend Winston Smith will see to it!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31A Free and Neutral Internet is the only way to stop 1984 from becoming 2007.
- ippersiel, on 10/12/2007, -8/+35That's why I don't read or watch the media.
This is becoming more and more like Newspeak from 1984 - MikeKnoop, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32How long do these polls run for? Is it possible the first poll simply expired and they put a new one up?
That's MY conspiracy theory.
-Mike - steelmaverick, on 10/12/2007, -24/+49I believe the official spelling is "truthiness", as told by our God Stephen Colbert.
- Eccohawk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22babies. she's got two now.
/scary
And who's this president you speak of? - MindTrigger, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21
*****. If you are a journalist and you are faced with being marginalized or fired because you want to report honest media, then QUIT YOUR JOB. Bending over and taking it is not the answer.
"The Devil made me do it." - Smwbigboss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15There's something called a "cached page."
- xixor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17At the same time, I ask myself, should I believe these images I have seen just because they are posted to digg and are essentially unverifiable?
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15"Anyone caught using the word "marginalized" should be hit with a whiffle bat until they loose consciousness. Ugh. So pretentious."
I'm sure I'll get buried for being so offensive, but this is probably the most retarded comment I've read all day. "Marginalized" ... pretentious? Hahahaha. Are you illiterate or something? "Marginalized" doesn't even start to make my list of pretentious words. Is it bad because it has more than 3 syllables? - n00854180t, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14You could probably find a version of the older poll cached in Google.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Some of it resembled today!? WTF are you smoking, it's practically word-for-word!
- TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Hah, now where are the naysayers who argued with me when I said polls were worthless in a previous article submission? I'll never believe some BS poll because it's just that, BS.
But who's to say this site is correct? The site posted doesn't seem that reputable. Who says it wasn't two different polls it shows in the screenshots? - Eicos, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Okay, so MSNBC changed the poll. Uncool, I suppose. This doesn't mean that the original poll was in any way representative of the US population, however. Most of those voting in the polls are otherwise intelligent internet junkies, who should really be ashamed of themselves for believing in something so hopelessly stupid.
- mc4_a, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12It only proves what a bunch of crap internet polls are.
- pexor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Maybe, but you might notice that the percentages didn't change between the two polls, which would support the claim that the questions were merely changed, and not the polls themselves.
- roguescout, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Just remember that 46% of all polls are right only 37% of the time*.
*This statement has a margin of error of +/- 83%. - Sp4nk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Web polls are one thing, but I absolutely hate it when the media has the audacity to say "This percentage of ALL Americans believe yada yada yada!"
- fani, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Newspapers should be about news. Not opinions. Just report on the goddamn issue.
Don't put a spin on it everytime. I just don't give a damn what NYPost or NYTimes think on the issue. (like those "wacko jacko" stories that were published about Michael Jackson. Presenting it wacko jacko is the spin ). Just tell me the ***** event. I'll make up my own mind about it. - dumpkopf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I'm just happy the article used Fnord.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fnord - geekee, on 10/15/2007, -4/+11They were probably embarrassed at how stupid the poll result makes their readers look, so they pulled it.
- EricPeters, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Hah, wow. I thought that book was stupid when we were forced to read it last year in my English class. Now I'm kinda creeped out by how some of it resembles what's going on today...
- overlordmead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Mr Peters,
Know your roll son! Just thank the lucky stars you were not required to read "Stone Angels" I nearly gouged my eyes out with my own fingernails in chapter 2.
1984 was riveting story telling. - Jaymoon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@jguy584:
What does capitalism have anything to do with this? If a media organization doesn't like it's sponsors directing their opinions, then get rid of them. Take the financial loss, and go find other sponsors.
The reason media organizations don't do this, is because apparently they are either so greedy for the money they don't stand up for principal, they agree with the directing, or just plain don't care.
That's sad. - drjones, on 10/15/2007, -7/+13Newsflash: Web Poll Proves Internet is Dumb
- kindernacht, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9good, point...it could've been shopped.
but still, if it wasn't...it doesn't matter how BS the numbers are. MSNBC still fudged things - xocomil, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I'll totally agree with you. I've worked for a well known market research company that also did political polling. Some of my favorite political polls went something like this:
Candidate A might have been found to enjoy the taste of baby flesh. He might have stated several times in the news that all minorities should be sent back to their countries.
Candidate B is the reincarnation of Gandhi. He also has a direct line with God.
Are you more likely to vote for Candidate A or Candidate B? How much more likely?
A series of questions like this would take place where Candidate A was basically smeared all over the place and Candidate B is glorified in every question. Of course all that is reported about these studies is that 70% of the people taking the study support Candidate B. This is really useful because if I hear that 70% of the people in a recent poll find Candidate B more appealing than Candidate A, I think that I should give Candidate B a chance.
Market Research studies are just as bad. I found a programming error in a study I was conducting that showed a major advertiser as being neck and neck with other stores that they could in no way compete with. The data was being recorded out of sync with the order that the competitors were being asked. It flattened the data out. The sad thing was that even after the flattening the advertiser still trailed by 10-15% and after cleaning the data they were trailing by 35-40%.
I don't know why people pay so much money (on the order of $25-50 per completed survey with n sizes of 150+) for worthless data. I guess it helps them to collect information that says "We made a good choice"... - Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@n00854180t: Maybe.
Google Cache:
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:qfX8lJmMU-0J:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/+msnbc+%22question+of+the+day%22
(September 11, 2006 - 18:00:34 UTC)
That's 3 hours after the site claims the change took place. So, for now, this seems to be unverifiable and should be considered questionable (which means it'll be snatched up by every conspiracy theorist in mere hours and be touted as absolute proof). - BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Imagine the results if foxnews.com posted the same poll.
- TheDrunkMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I am really getting sick of these conspiracy theories. The US is in a sad state of affairs if that many people actually think that it was an inside job.
- JeffreyLB, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I've also seen polls here that 36% think 9/11 was an inside job, while 38% think Iraq did 9/11. That leaves, um, 26% who think it was just al-Qaeda. So, no matter who you are or where you stand, about two-thirds of America is totally crazy.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10When 9/11 happened, my first though was- Oh crap! We're in for some war.
My second thought was that this will keep the conspiracy nuts busy for the rest of time.
There is a problem with conspiracies. People like to retire and write books (badly). People like to quit in a huff and write self-agrandizing books (Richard Clark). People get fired and talk to the media. People change their mind/politics/positions, go nuts, have a crisis of conscious or find Jesus BUT THEY WILL NOT REMAIN SILENT.
I suppose that it is easier to believe an elaborate conspiracy took place than a combination of luck/bad-luck, incompetence, apathy and lax security. - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Wow.. it's incredible how many people believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who hates Bush as much as I do -- but I never believed in the supposed 9/11 conspiracy for a moment. If only there were good evidence and not just a group of people who believe for the sake of believing and concocting outlandish scenarios..
Someone give me concrete evidence. No, I don't mean the unequivocal ***** from 'Loose Change' - I mean actual facts and real science and unquestionable observation. - Protonz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If the Bush admin was as clever and calculating as the conspiracy theories suggest, why didn't they plant WMDs in Iraq?
That said I still like watching Alex Jones and various conspiracy stuff. - kurtcocain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6this only matters if you are stupid enuff to put stock in polls in the first place. who cares
- peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Things like polls on websites and call in talk shows always have a disproportionate number of quacks, or radicals, answering them. When I see a poll like that on a website it may just occupy my mind for nearly 1/10th of a second and I certainly wouldn't waste the time to vote on it. But who would? Someone who thinks their opinion always just has to be heard or, more likely, someone who is devoted to an issue. Then said person emails their friends who agree with them telling them to go vote, that maybe, if their fiend votes ""They" will have to stop dodging the truth now, and cover "the story.""
The two things that really bothered me about them taking it down was the fact that they put the poll up to begin with, and the fact that changed the wording to be more pandering. - venir, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Well said.
I think the point that most people miss here is that regardless of whether or not our government had anything to do with 9/11, they have been taking advantage of it ever since and using it as a tool to broaden their stranglehold on our civil liberties. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Ding, Ding, Ding!
We have a WINNER! - smegthelight, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Don't worry, the Christian version of Islamic Fundamentalists will quickly get this marked as inaccurate..
Did people in the government take advantage of events of 9/11 to get things they wanted after the event ?
You're naive to think otherwise. It's human nature, and unavoidable. It still needs to be punished when discovered, and it still needs to be discovered. Most of these people are just greedy bastards.
Did they start to take advantage as the lane into attacks were unfolding ?
Perhaps. It's not a hard stretch to think that some Christian Fundamentalists in positions of power would make choices as the events unfolded in a way that would benefit their agenda. Its a truly evil thing to do, but so was flying planes into the WTC. Anyone who just dismisses this outright and makes you feel guilty for even thinking it is probably a Christian Fundamentalists.
This must also be discovered and punished since it is possible that instead of being a Christian Fundamentalists they are in fact just very very stupid and incompetent in their duties.
Now, the kicker, did they start to take advantage BEFORE the attacks started in a way to allow the carnage to happen ?
Well, this is probably the actual conspiracy theory. You have to be quite a wing-nut to pull this kind of stunt off, and if you are that crazy chances are you will wind up getting caught for something LONG before you get into that position of power..
Then again.. Hitler did make it all the way. - SecondGuesser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Loose Change has been thorough debunked. One premise advanced by Loose Change is that burning jet fuel cannot "melt steel" and thus this is not the real reason the towers collapsed. While true, it unfortunately does not mean the towers could maintain structural integrity. Steel is malleable in this type of heat and certainly could not support the load, even though it had not reached it's melting point.
Could all the idiots furthering this stupid "Loose Change" theory explain to me one thing? Why would you believe a snot-nosed teenage with a parent-supplied Mac over the National Institute of Standards and Technology, who enlisted hundreds of engineers to do this study? - wurzelgummage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'm pretty sure that if they ran a poll asking if people think the U.S government is covering up alien abductions, it would get a lot of "yes" votes.
The American public are ***** morons. - SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Yes considering only liberals watch MSNBC.
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3the other thing u often look for when a crime is commited, who has something to gain from this?
- tgilber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If the "Illuminati" were pulling strings, wouldn't it be more to their gain to simply change the results to reflect that the majority doesn't believe in the conspiracy theories? Then they'd at least get some "groupthink" going on... changing the question, just, you know, changes the question and polls on something else...
If only conspiracy theory nuts would devote so much time to something worth it... - twinmatrix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Is their any chance people were using bots to vote and that's why they took it down?
- gaoshan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Perhaps MSNBC, being a reputable news outlet, decided that a conspiracy theory oriented question shouldn't be entertained within the realm of serious journalism. Of course, this IS just a poll (which in itself isn't serious journalism but that is another issue).
Being an old school journalist myself I could easily see something like that initial poll question appearing, a different editor seeing it and thinking "WTF are we doing dealing in conspiracy theory BS?" and then ordering a more appropriate question posted. Or perhaps, as others have said, the poll was due to be changed at that time. Or perhaps, since it is just a poll, no one there took it very seriously and the issue of changing it had nothing to do with anything much at all. -
Show 51 - 100 of 158 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is