What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history – the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
133 Comments
- ScrewedThePooch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+76With the media pulling stunts like reversing party affiliations when a senator gets busted and reporting 24/7 coverage of Paris Hilton's retarded ass and Lindsay Lohan's crack addictions, it's no wonder nobody takes them seriously anymore.
- chase001, on 10/10/2007, -2/+67The internet couldn't have come along at a better time. Right as the Corporate Media failed us more than ever before, the internet filled the void left behind.
- sorensilk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+46The Democrat vs. Republican issue doesn't matter. It's simple, "Big Media" is corporate media. They're going to have a bias one way or the other because they have to keep their own interests in mind when reporting stories. They don't care about reporting the the facts anymore, they're just worried about ratings and making money.
That's why so many people have turned to the internet. Here you can actually find the truth. It takes a little more effort because you have to sift through the crap but it's here. - slider121, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29I can't stand main stream media. The Joint Chief of Staff resigns and what does the big 3 network news lead with, Paris Hilton. Thats news?
- Pfhreak, on 10/10/2007, -9/+34Fox News is a big part of the Big Media problem.
- listrophy, on 10/10/2007, -5/+26So... what makes you right and them wrong?
Just askin'. - SaII, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17these days everything is about $$
- krnldmp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17This is what happens when you let the marketing department run the show.
- skellener, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16Big media deserves what it gets. They sensationalize non-news, they spread FUD, they don't report the facts and they don't follow up. This goes for all media (TV, magazines, etc.) regardless of political affiliation. They have no respect for the public so the public has no respect for them. The sooner they all go under the better.
- digichris, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15I cannot wait for the fall of mainstream media. It will be coming soon. Everyone just needs to learn how to hook up their PC's to their TV's and we are good to go. The revolution will be intranetized.
- ThePerkins, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16There aren't two political parties in America. There's one. People bitch about democrats bending over for Bush's wiretapping bill, but they still think that voting for a democrat will change something. They're two sides of the same greedy, corporate owned, fear-mongering coin, morons.
- SirTheGuy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Not only that, but it's the wisdom of the community. There is a lot more information and many different viewpoints to look at things from than one single opinion put on a 30-minute spot. I love reading the news from other countries, gives me a better perspective on world events
- irvman21, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14It entertains me to no end how much of a liberal bias most of the mainstream media outlets have, yet ask a Democrat and they'll say there's a coservative bias. I've never met a Republican that doesn't admit Fox News is biased and yet somehow I can't find a Democrat who will admit the same thing about the New York Times.
- superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I don't know there is really as great a divide between republicans and democrats as there seems to be - the MSM sensationalizes everything, which polarizes people more than they would be otherwise if they had a deeper and more reasoned look at things.
With simpler views onto things, is it any wonder that discussion becomes more childish? - Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8"The internet IS big media"
No, just certain web sites on it. - drjones78, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7They are only held accountable if someone bothers to hold them accountable. The individual generally isnt powerful enough to do this. A beurocrat or politician generally wont, because the press is one of their accomplices.
- LordSlashstab55, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9it's not brainless, there is a motive.
- fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7You just have to hope that in that case, a relatively trustworthy company (Google?) would create an ISP based around net neutrality. Even better, a nonprofit consortium could do it. Either way, it is better to keep the internet as it is now neutral, and not have to worry about it.
- polyGone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6You know, the words terrorist and tinfoil hat seem to be the only counter argument your type has. It is aluminum anyway, jackass.
- Authustian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6God rest their zombie bones.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9But, how many choices do you get from the big news networks, 4, perhaps 5? Now what about the net? 4, 5 thousand??
Sure, the same garbage is there, but its a lot easier to find the 'real' news rather than just be spoon fed ***** and told that "everything is okay - terror, terror, terrorists attacking our freedoms"! - UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Unless big media purchases the internet. Net neutrality?
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I think iPhone stories trumped any real news on Digg. The internet actually makes "Big Media" look pretty responsible.
- maz2331, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6But... outside our borders, a lot of the world is far more left leaning than the USA. European conservative parties are about ideologically the same as our Democrats. The Euro left is full-bore socialist/communist.
- defwheezer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6"Network" news has been reduced to infotainment- no wonder folks are more than a tad leery of CNN/FOX/CBS,etc's "truthyness".
- synthpop, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6"Is the liberal left's mistrust of the media helping Al-Queda? We'll have more on that in a moment, but first here's Wendy with a Lindsay Lohan update.."
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -10/+15Fox News is the brainless political attack keyword of certain political groups.
- slayerab, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Red states? Blue States? Who cares, they the networks want the green money.
- Pfhreak, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6"I've never met a Republican that doesn't admit Fox News is biased..." You should meet JamesSpaza, LeadOffMan, and mchinsky, then. "It entertains me to no end how much of a liberal bias most of the mainstream media outlets have,..." The MSM, outside of a few ideology-pushers, don't display any "bias", they chase the current majority view. When the majority of Americans were behind Bush and the War on Terror, the MSM ran all kinds of "Are we safe?", "What possible ways could terrorists attack us?", "What's wrong with Germany and France" type stories. They have a sensationalist "bias", they chase whichever stories are "hot topic" right now, the ones that will push viewers buttons the most and keep them watching.
- MrSketch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5The few, the proud, the billionaires?
- listrophy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Wow. Those are some big words you got there... but perhaps you should read my post again.
First, I am not "accusing" my "opponent" of anything. I am merely stating that the statement made by suxmonkey could be reversed by someone of a conservative leaning. The result would be an equally accurate assertion. Why? Suxmonkey provides neither proof nor evidence. His statement is thus more-or-less irrelevant to any conversation. In saying this, I should also point out that the hypothetical reversed statement by a conservative is equally irrelevant.
Second, how have I posed suxmonkey as an opponent of mine? My post was made in the position of an uninterested third-party. The words "you" and "them" should have made this quite obvious. - tsotha, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Everything was always about $$. These days are no different.
- elknino, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6your right to type has been revoked for 2 hours
- fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7"MSN, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC are always hard left."
No. Just no. The only consistently liberal mainstream media source I can think of is MSNBC. The others usually have a mix from each side (which is different than being neutral, by the way), while Fox is almost always conservative. - FredFredrickson, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5And along comes net neutrality and ruins the whole thing.
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"And along comes net neutrality and ruins the whole thing."
Statements like this illustrate that the internet is a bigger source of misinformation than mainstream media. - UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/10/2007, -6/+9If that were true, then Ron Paul wouldn't be so popular. The MSN is lying to us about him because he doesn't support their interests. Wake up, smell the truth.
- ezstan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Awareness. It's a bitch ain't it?
This is got to be the most interesting time to be alive. - willistg, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6"This, however, doesn't mean that the public isn't keeping up with drinking a tall glass of press "hatorade." Pew notes that, since 1985, the public generally sees the mainstream press as doing an increasingly bad job at remaining moral, protecting democracy, and avoiding bias."
from wikipedia....
"In 1984, the Supreme Court decided that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine did not apply to expanding communications technologies, and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364)[6]. The Court's majority decision by William J. Brennan, Jr. noted concerns that the Fairness Doctrine was "chilling speech," and added that the Supreme Court would be "forced" to revisit the constitutionality of the doctrine if it did have "the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing speech."
Under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, and who once equated television to a "toaster with pictures," the commission began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment."
what a coincidence. - archimago42, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6More Critical? Maybe. Last I checked most people are still voting on presidential candidates based on looks and faith alone. Most people that doubt the media simply doubt whatever they don't already agree with and then believe whatever fits best into their little lives.
- Stevejsam, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Your kidding right? I hope your kidding. Have you ever watched CNN or a NPR report? The only thing more openely liberal than that is some of the liberal blogspam on digg. There is an overwhelming liberal bias in the MSM. And I guess if you dont see that, perhaps you are SO FAR left that it looks conservative to you. Then you should go live in Chavez's soon to starve communist utopia.
- stupergenius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3A void to be filled with the likes of MrBabyMan. I don't know whether to cry....or cry.
I kid, I kid. All hail the MrBabyMan, the man closest to my digging heart. - shig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Fox News is owned by News Corporation, chaired by Rupert Murdoch, which is one of the largest media conglomerates on planet Earth.
- superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The press however should not be a watchdog for only half the government. It's either all or nothing, as they are discovering...
- sgtpppr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4The two party system is the status quo. It's the non-choice so that people feel like they have choice. The government has to keep the illusion of freedom and choice or there would be revolt. So, what you have is two departments working for the same company with the same ends. The only difference between them is how they get there and what they do to reach that end. It's the exact same way most successful sales people sell products: you always give them a choice between two things you want. You don't say, ' do you want this or not?'. You say 'do you want the basic or premium package'. It's still technically a choice, but...
- tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3WEell, if you're a scoialist, I suppose you definitely wouldn't like the corporate-controlled (as is every other industry) media.
- Spankenstein, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I think the big divide is between those fooled by the false dichotomy presented by those who call themselves Democrats and Republicans vs Libertarians and other supporters of liberty and limited government. When you have all major candidates on both sides pretending that security is the biggest issue--rather than government encroachment on civil liberties--it's hard to imagine that either party is intent on serving the best interests of the people. Both major parties are corporate puppets.
- heystoopid, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3They lost the plot , when Fox TV network arrived on the scene , and started using the words fair and balanced in their news reports, although the biggest rot initially started way back when 60 minutes arrived on the scene and they have never looked forward only backwards since that date
The late Edward R Murrow comments captured it so sweetly “To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; credible we must be truthful.”
Since when was the last time the mass media told the complete truth since 1986 ? - tsotha, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Not necessarily. We're in a position now where the media scrutinizes and vets every utterance of the military and administration, but a video from the other side gets reported without comment. We're not asking for a press that only reports stories that help the US, but we'd like to see the same healthy skepticism for all sources of information that they seem to reserve for pro-US sources.
- jull1234, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Might you be a ...national...socialist...?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 134 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