What is Digg?98 Comments
- Burento, on 07/09/2008, -2/+51What pisses me off is the lack of accountability... its *****
- MrWhipplemen, on 07/09/2008, -0/+45What pisses me off is Nancy Grace
- da_bradler, on 07/10/2008, -0/+42I think the media just needs to stop naming the accused until they are actually proven guilty. I mean the problem is accusing someone is big news, but all charges being dropped is reserved for page c14 in the newspaper.
24 hour news stations I think is the problem. they just have to much time to do nothing so they sit around playing who dun it. - vic42482, on 07/09/2008, -2/+39Well... it's just a fact that in a court of public opinion you are presumed guilty unless proven otherwise. Unfortunately don't see it changing any time soon.
- inactive, on 07/10/2008, -0/+35Nancy Grace is the worst. Did anyone notice that she was gone on the day the charges against those lacrosse players were dropped?
- arjie, on 07/10/2008, -1/+22Is Fox News run by rabid baby-eaters that kill your pet rabbits? We'll report. You decide.
Clever way of doing it, that. Asking a question. Clever. - kensavage, on 07/09/2008, -4/+22do not pass go. do not collect $200
- sugarazor, on 07/10/2008, -0/+17She's always gone when information like that comes out. When Chris Benoit's autopsy revealed massive brain damage, she was nowhere to be found because it went against her whole "ROID RAGE!" claim.
- prisoner24601, on 07/10/2008, -2/+19Buried for "on close" pop-up spam scripting on page.
- thefarouk, on 07/10/2008, -1/+16The problem isn't the news media - its us. As long as enough of us cannot pry ourselves away from the TV, or dare to check more than one source of a news story before accepting it as gospel, or *gasp* even have the independant thought that perhaps there's more to the story than is being reported, the media will continue to sell us their stories, and get paid for the commercials inbetween.
The solution is for us to stop rewarding the news media which do this, by no longer consuming their product. If their ratings go down, they wont sell enough commerical time, and they'll be forced to change subject matter to something that sells.
The truth is, especially in this age, the internet court of public opinion can rapidly destroy someone long before they are even charged by law enforcement, if indeed they ever are. Consider, for example, a recent case where a certain singer who I will not name, was phone-camera-captured having simulated s*x with a 15 year old while doing a show in Trinadad... did anyone in the media make the point that the club supposedly screened everyone for ID? Did anyone in the media point out that the age of consent in Trinadad is 16, and not 18? Did anyone in the media point out that the 'victim' was clearly participating actively, and enjoying, the act? But end the end, since he's a public figure, an entertainers career is now in ashes.
But its not the fault of the media - they report what we tell them (by watching) we want to consume. So don't blame anyone but the person in the mirror. - StarofTroy, on 07/10/2008, -0/+15The best way to fight this is to exercise our own 1st amendment right and tell them to shut up. Have you watched O'Reily lately? I hope not. The "Heartland" America eats up that ***** and if there's no one around to say "hey wait look at what we actually know" then all the people will just go along with it.
- imofirey, on 07/10/2008, -1/+15Because, had the media not caught on to it as badly as they did, the lacrosse team wouldn't have had as many problems.
- xutopia, on 07/10/2008, -2/+16What an obnoxious page! It prompts you when you try to leave it!
- menwuur, on 07/10/2008, -4/+17***** you and your free gift
- Pittance, on 07/10/2008, -0/+13I NEVER even heard that. Jesus christ. Was he found innocent/crazy postmortem? God damn the stupid ***** biased media. All of it. A waste of oxygen.
- enders, on 07/10/2008, -0/+12I wouldn't look so far into it... it's just reaffirming how easily accusations and guilty verdicts fly when stories get sensationalized, particularly from racial overtones like the ones in the Duke case.
- manova, on 07/10/2008, -0/+11As soon as I read Burento's comment, Nancy Grace popped into my mind also. After she caused Melinda Duckett's suicide, there is no way she should still have her own show. Heck, she should be in jail. I don't know how the wrongful death lawsuit is going, put I hope she pays dearly.
- CoreyHalliwell, on 07/10/2008, -0/+10That's the beauty of the Internet! You can get all the information you need and form your own version of a situation without worrying about things like "facts" or "the truth".
- inactive, on 07/09/2008, -2/+11first amendment reigns supreme... let them do what they want.. best way to fight this is to not watch the 'news'
- IllBeBack, on 07/10/2008, -0/+9Yeah, that ***** ***** totally ruined part of the movie "Hancock."
- TheOtherOne135, on 07/10/2008, -0/+9Libel/slander is very hard to prove against someone who has grounds to call himself/herself a "journalist". They have First Amendment rights. Those rights have been interpreted in such a way that you can only win on libel/slander if you can prove that they were acting maliciously when they wrongly assumed your guilt and repeated untrue claims about you.
And it's really, really hard to prove malice. That's why the wronged Duke students are suing various people and entities (the school, the hospital, the prosecutor, the lead cop, etc.), but NOT the journalists who reported all the untrue claims. - inactive, on 07/10/2008, -0/+9so who didn't know america has become Salem, MA, with McCarthy as mayor?
i've skipped all the silly, waste-of-energy revelations -- denial, anger, shock... i just accept. i think 'hope' has something to do with this stage, but i'm really not seeing any first hand... - RudeTurnip, on 07/10/2008, -0/+7Rupert Murdoch started that with his newspapers a long time ago.
- EarlOfLade, on 07/10/2008, -1/+8Huh? I had nothing popup, Firefox 3...
- bmcnally, on 07/10/2008, -0/+7When did you stop beating your wife?
- Tenlow, on 07/10/2008, -0/+7Scrappy, that's kind of the point of these comments. She had never been PROVEN guilty. Everyone just assumed so, especially Nancy Grace, and that pushed her over the edge. Even if she was guilty, we still have an obligation to find out the truth before public condemnations.
- whiledo, on 03/25/2009, -0/+6What the hell are you talking about? In the American court system, we consider the accused is presumed innocent. Amazingly enough, just like England. Although there are differences, such that in England, if you refuse to testify in your own trial or refuse to answer a question in cross-examination, the court is allowed to infer that this means you are guilty.
Learn some history or at least just spend an hour in wikipedia. You might avoid displaying your ignorance in public, at least on these issues. - inactive, on 07/10/2008, -1/+7Oh, great.
So it's up to you to hire lawyers and pay to defend yourself?
From lies?
Nah, your idea is stupid. - Arcesius, on 07/10/2008, -0/+6I seriously think that the punishment the media doles out, in terms of damaged reputation, public shunnings, and so on, can be worse than what the justice system doles out. '***** up that way
- TheOtherOne135, on 07/10/2008, -0/+624-hour news is part of it, but I think a bigger part is the assumption on the part of "Big Media" that the masses are stupid and have no attention spans and shouldn't be bothered with anything subtle. Discussing the fact that someone is under suspicion because 4 of his wives have died is far less interesting (and takes a bit more time) if you also mention the fact that this is all circumstantial and that (as far as you know) there's no other evidence . . . . The Duke "rape" case is far less interesting if you talk about inconsistencies in the accuser's claims, and admit that it's possible there was no rape at all.
And no journalist really wants to come back and say "hey, folks, last week we told you that Mr. Doe was a 'person of interest' - turns out, there's no real evidence that he did anything." They think that would reduce their credibility. Personally, I think their failure to *ever* make those kinds of statements reduces their credibility far more. - sugarazor, on 07/10/2008, -3/+9I like the article, but this was a bit jarring:
"The infamous Duke "rape" case is a prime example. After an African American stripper claimed she'd been gang-raped at a lacrosse-team party in March 2006, the press vilified the well-to-do white accused."
While there were certainly some racial issues to this case, the article doesn't touch on them except the fact that the accuser was black and the accused were white... what does that have to do with this article? - Asrrin29, on 07/10/2008, -0/+6Buried as well, this may have been a good article, but I refuse to give more traffic to a website that tries to force users to view pop-ups. What happens is a dialog box opens up telling you to disable your pop-up blocker. this happens if you try and close the tab, so if you don't click any of the buttons it won't let you close your browser. I won't click them because I value my spyware and virus free computer.
- sodade, on 07/10/2008, -0/+6Yes, but you and I both know that "us" = code for the vast majority of idiots and not really "us."
- shutaro, on 07/10/2008, -0/+6Yes. O'Reily killed my rabbit and ate it in front of me... Raw.
- dampeal, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5The truth doesn't bring in ratings, doesn't sell newspapers, and doesn't bring visitors to websites because it's usually boring and unexciting.
- MWeather, on 07/10/2008, -1/+6There is accountability. Just sue for libel/slander. It's not up to the government to do it for you.
- AbsurdParadox, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5Intellectual accuracy has been dead for 50 years. Very few people care about the truth, about anything.
- sugarazor, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4Fair enough, it just stuck out a bit to me.
- sodade, on 07/10/2008, -1/+5No doubt - WTF is that crap? I had to kill my browser to get out of it. This ***** should be ***** illegal.
- Pittance, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4Can we have clones of all of your journalists? From what I have heard, they actually do the job of journalists, and not gossip columnists.
- Animal, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4"Now, here are some results from our phone-in poll: 95% of the people believe Homer Simpson is guilty. Of course, this is just a television poll which is not legally binding, unless proposition 304 passes. And we all pray it will."
- K7Avenger, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4Everytime I watch the news with anyone and someone is being accused/arrested for a crime, it will take less than 2 seconds before you hear: "I HOPE THAT PUKE GOES TO JAIL FOREVER!" Dugg, this freaks me out to no end.
- pintomp3, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4they should be able to say what they want and not have the government arrest them for it. but you should be able to sue them in civil court.
- screamingjoker, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4Free the West Memphis 3 !
- bungoman, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4I can't stand her. Fake moral outrage is the most annoying thing ever.
- urgeigh, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4Yeah, gotta love the 5th amendment.. U.S. Courts are just Britain's improved. That's about the only thing the founders of America thought was worth keeping but with a few tweaks.
- jamessavik, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Nancy Grace gives bitches a bad name.
- GeauxLSU, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3I equate this to shouting fire in a crowded theater....i.e. the benefit to society overwhelms the individual right to free speech.
IMO, court cases shouldn't be discussed until the verdict is handed down and then put under wraps again if there is an appeal. We don’t need to know….BUT the accused NEEDS JUSTICE!
Screw Nancy Grace…..I understand she had a horrible past, BUT it doesn’t excuse her actions! - jamessavik, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3apparently innocent until proved guilty is one of those quaint old idea that that doesn't fit the sensibilities of the paranoid generation which has been told since birth that dirty old men are out to fondle them.
- jamessavik, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Journalist can get away with murder, or at least character assassination, by claiming that they are acting with good faith while reporting exactly what the POLICE have told them in a press conference.
The investigative journalist is a myth. The media is spoon fed the stuff that they regurgitate on camera by the police, gov't agencies and corporations.
That is why everyone that complains is some sort of extremist or a disgruntled former employee. -
Show 51 - 98 of 98 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is