What is Digg?53 Comments
- hugepedlar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Interesting. But I suspect there's too much abstraction at the moment: Digg stories often link to blogs, which get their info from other blogs, which might have a link to an original source.
Until we here start quoting, and creating, primary sources, the Old Media have little to worry about. - stuffhappens, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Wow, was that article written with rose tinted specs.
All I see that Digg has brought is poor spelling, bad grammar and not-exactly-up-to-the-minute-news in most cases - we have had articles reposted from 2004, articles showing pictures of explosions at sea during nuclear tests AGES ago and a lot of stuff that's ‘doing the rounds’ between Boing Boing, Slashdot, Fark, Hackaday etc. - sometimes it's hard to see where the circle begins; did a Digger find this on Slashdot, or did Slashdot find it on...well, you know what I mean - we get a LOT a lot of stuff that can be easily found by those interested in such things with a quick Googling.
Yes, Digg does sometimes (about 2-3 times a week) turn up a piece that makes me think, ‘hey, that’s new’, but having a myriad of 'editors' just pushes tons of 'unfocused' mush towards the front end - at least with some tighter editorial control the whole thing would steer in roughly the same direction all the time, but Digg is all over the place and whereas a paid or ‘professional’ editor or editorial group (as a newspaper would have, and some other Web sites do) would strive for balance and quality of contents, we have seen Digg spark off a number of attacks on people and companies, based on inaccurate or mistaken information and the biggest rush that the contributors get is NOT upholding any semblance of journalistic standards or integrity, but just seeing whether they can get an article onto the front page. We might then see the usual flurry of ‘cools’, ‘awesomes’ and ‘this is lame/crap’ replies followed by a few who will blog the story (WHY!!!???) so creating a trail of unnecessary echoes throughout Webspace – and this bugs me…
…why the heck would I want to hang out at frodo300xyz’s blog when all they do is repeat stuff from Digg? Do they think they are doing a better job at filtering the mush than me? How would I know what is or isn’t being filtered unless I also check Digg…and if I’m checking Digg’s main site, why the hell would I go sniffing around a bunch of blogs when Digg is supposed to bring it all together in the first place…aargh! It’s pointless! - stimcaps, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Jarvis is a hack. Digg is fun, but journalism it ain't. I think everyone here knows this.
- dawgma, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7If a new journalism is on the horizon, Digg won't be the model for it. Sites like newsvine.com where you can still vote on articles would make more of a difference. A place where seasoned and amateur writers can contribute.
Digg is a social bookmarking site related to technology... It links to articles already written by other people and does not offer any new *source* for news. It's like Fark or Slashdot, but with i. It's not a news source. - navster15, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"In him [Kevin Rose], we see the media industry of the future."
Is it just me or does this come off as a creepy declaration of Kevin as a messiah? Granted, he's a cool guy, but I'm starting to think that the Digg community is elevating him as a herald of all things tech, similar to Steve Jobs. For me personally, it runs counter to the Digg culture of group contribution. - truspark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Journalism is not linking to someone else's story - that's distribution. That's what Digg is. Unfortunately that is also what most of the networks and all the the cable networks have become. Just as bunch of kids chasing soccer balls as John Stewart so aptly put it. Journalism is doing research, interviewing people and finding the story behind the story. It's about keeping the powerful and corrupt in check. It hasn't been that for a long while and part of the reason is because the powerful and corrupt have taken over the news business in this country because it was cutting into their margins. If GE was still polluting the Hudson river today with PCBs do you think anyone from NBC would be reporting it? Yeah, there are still magazines like Mother Jones but they don't attract enough people for corporations to have to care. There was a time when corporations and politicians feared journalists. Now they go golfing with their fellow millionaires.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Little too much credit for Digg here and not enough for sources that have been around a lot longer and had a much greater effect like Slashdot and all those stalker-like Apple blogs.
- RicDesan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Coming from the world of Tech PR and "natural born geekdom," I witnessed the torch dropping of unbiased journalism long ago. While it languished, all that was needed was a vehicle to pick it up and continue the march. I welcome Digg the new torch bearer and all the capable reporters of the world that strive to contribute not because its a job, but because its a passion to know and share.
- jersey_steve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2 "The flaw of populist news sites like digg is that the least popular stories won't make it
to the front. Stories about the US Military ***** on Arab Corpses in a prison in a
nation they invaded illegally doesn't go down well for most people, so they won't digg it."
Is that really a fair statement? Digg doesn't have a World News or Politics section, so the chances of seeing stories like this are slim to none. I think if you were to create a DiggNews site (as opposed to DiggTech) you would draw a different type of crowd to it and, yes, you would see stories like that reach the front page. Do I think a World News section of the main digg site would actually work? Doubtful. But I don't think that's because people don't care, it's just that the majority of the user base here seems too young to really have an appreciation of what's going on outside of their immediate area of interest.
I do think that sites like Digg will eventually become the new media. The main problem with the old media is that it is all owned by corporations that are tied into the political machine. They basically report what they are told to. Whereas under the digg ideal, a independent journalist can post a story to his or her blog and once it makes it out to user controlled sites like this, people will read it and the truth will be known. Mind you I don't think this is going to happen overnight, but sites like this are the start of a big change in media as we know it. In 10 years time I really believe people will come here to places like Digg, not CNN for their news. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I am amazed at the number of people who have no farking clue what digg is about, what its purpose is, or what its net effect on the flow of information is. Pathetic.
- ArchibaldTuttle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Does every article/interview involving digg have to be posted? I mean everyone here knows digg was a great idea, do we need to keep reminding ourselves?
- Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Let's also not forget that unlike some traditional media establishments, there are no mechanisms here to control unsavoury elements such as bias, groupthink, and enforce accountability. If you post an inaccurate story and it gets 1200 diggs, you won't lose your job. Unless you work for the Washington Post, you'd have a hard time keeping your job at a dead tree outlet after letting a tainted story hit the front page.
Geeks are not automatically good journalists. More often than not they are simply terrible ones with little regard for integrity, objectivity, and ethics. - JiMiThInG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Reading that story does make me remember what a blessing Tech TV going lame ended up being. All our favorites from the channel went online and have brought us all this cool stuff like digg, diggnation and TWIT
- clevershark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2To reiterate my clipped comment, isn't that what has been known for years as "the slashdot effect" and "the fark effect"? The article makes it sound like this phenomenon came about with Digg when, in fact, it's not even close.
- plkrtn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Brown noser extraordinare at the Guardian.
Yes, Kevin has done something different but is he really the future of media? Nah... not really. - DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"a lot of stuff that's ‘doing the rounds’ between Boing Boing, Slashdot, Fark, Hackaday etc. - sometimes it's hard to see where the circle begins; did a Digger find this on Slashdot, or did Slashdot find it on"
Though I agree with most of your points, I think the "inbred" nature of link sites really isn't that much different than how the traditional media tends to use mostly AP and Reuters feeds and tend to have the exact same stories. It wasn't all that noticeable when people only read the paper that came to their door, but now that every paper is online, we can see how unoriginal traditional news sources have always been. The redundant blogging is just a spin-off of that. - phpkerouac, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Kevin Rose is just a big soap box builder - give a geeka platform and they will tell you whatever is on their mind at the time. digg is not journalism.
(but hey - neither are a majority of the big "news" players - fox, msnbc, blah blah) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nice read and good points made by the writer.
- deut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To be honest, most of the time I like reading the comments that people make more than the actual story itself.
- itchyfeet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Would a Seymour Hersh story ever get digged to the front page? Does anybody know who Seymour Hersh is? Then, I'm sorry, but +digg is not the future of journalism. The flaw of populist news sites like digg is that the least popular stories won't make it to the front. Stories about the US Military ***** on Arab Corpses in a prison in a nation they invaded illegally doesn't go down well for most people, so they won't digg it. Unfortunately that means peopel are not interested in news - they're interested in tittilation, hedonism and wish fullfillment. I see a lot of "interesting" stuff on digg, but as many point out here, there is very little media anymore that is "new" and where journalists create new sources. That's why so many people are clueless about what is going on in their own backyard, their media is equally stupid and are merely spreading the idiocy. Until people develop an actual appetite for truth, they will continue seeking liesure and light reading.
- coustoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1anyone else getting tired of these self affirmation/self promoting how great digg is stories on here?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Its not only that, but digg is always changing, always adding new stuff, new features, and that's also one of the things that makes it great.
- Petronski, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Scruffy geek? He says that like it's a bad thing.
And then there's this:
"this is known as 'the Digg effect'"
Also apparently known as "digg rape" of the site/server. - Jazza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0good read +digg
- BrianR, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The geeks will inherit journalism or the journalist will have to become geeks.Journalists call this process "convergence". When they ALL finally become hip?
- Midnightbrewer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Digg is a social bookmarking site related to technology... It links to articles already written by other people and does not offer any new *source* for news. It's like Fark or Slashdot, but with i. It's not a news source."
That sounds like a lot of so-called news sources. If you bring news to an audience, you become a source of news. All news is passed along from somebody, somewhere. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1 hugepedlar: And Old Media uses primary sources?
Primary sources are rarely ever used in fact, except for big stories. And even then most news is drowned out by derivative stories illicited by the primary work. You had better believe they should be concerned. Digg hits em right where it hurts- in the content. - robusteza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+014, huh?
that may make me think twice before i make jackass comments. never occurred to me that kids could be lurking. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Let's just remember that Digg NEEDS news, it can't live by itself.
- cable22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Mushoo - I'll agree with you that digg stories aren't "earth shaking". But it's the potential digg has, and I think people respect that. If and when digg moves from just science, tech and fanboy stuff, then we will really see the power of this website. Can you imagine what digg will be like taking in all the world's news? Or think smaller and imagine a "local digg" with all the info going on in your specific neighborhood. Again, its the potential, that's all I'm saying.
- 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think the article confuses something here - digg reports on content *created by others*. As (I believe it was) Dvorak who said, someone, somwhere along the line actually has to *create* the stuff. It's true that anyone can become an armchair journalist with little more than an opinion and a blog, but I'd argue that true journalism requires a much higher standard.
Digg serves an interesting purpose, but I don't think one of them is "changing the media industry" - it might change the way we have access to it, and the way that we can relate to it, but ultimately, the people creating the media - the professional journalists - are still a very key part of the equation. - phenopticon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I tend to use Digg a lot toward a journalistic end, not blog "journalism" either, like real get naked and raped by bears journalism.
- hesdeadjim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0As others have noted: What about the content?
"Old Media" brings two things to the table, content and editing. I think the editing part of "old media" is in trouble. I hope that "old media" finds a way to keep producing content. - clevershark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0*Digg is a new concept because all of the users decide what stories are shown on the main page.*
er, Plastic has always worked that way, no? - juanbobo808, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0VERY good article about what is happening in the media today. The internet is the future of all media, and that's how digg is so innovative.
+digg - leonbev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What's scary to me is that digg often considers baseless rumors and people's opinions as "news". Someone could get in serious trouble if they believed half of the things that get posted here.
I still think that Digg should have a separate "rumors" catagory, just to improve the quality of the news stories posted here. - Simen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0An OK voice of opinion. A little too romantic, and nothing new.
Possibly a good read for people similar to the writer...that would be DADS. - lowrydr310, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I get the feeling that Digg was created primarily to make money and not necessarily to provide up-to-date news. Like slashdot, digg can drive a lot of valuable traffic to a site, but unlike slashdot there's no particular focus of the articles. Slashdot is "News For Nerds" and despite its flaws, it's still one of the best.
- writo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0'The future of journalism ?" Well, who's going to write all those articles that 'diggers' push to the front page? The bloggers? And where would bloggers get their material from? The wire agencies? Who would pay the wire agencies if all we were doing is repackaging the news. This article misses the fundamental point that content needs to be created in order to be 'mashedup' or 'Flickrd' or 'Slashdotted' Let's face it. Humans like things easy for them. The greatest invention of the last hundred years was not Television. It was the remote control. What does that tell you? We are a race of voyeurs. Why is TIVO still not the rage it should be? Because we like being spoon fed.
- zachfewtrell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0baby can you digg your man?
- mushoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Every article out there comes from Reuters and the Associated Press. CNN, Fox News, etc., all their websites do is pull stories from one of the two sources. And they know one day, people won't come to them anymore.
Their only role is to distribute information, and once more and more people start hearing about digg, why would they waste their time with other media outlets?
Personally, I think the networks ARE paying attention to digg. Do you guys remember that meat story with carbon dioxide treatment this week? The day after it was on digg, it was on Fox News. And why wouldn't it be... I'm betting they have some tech savy people, probably in their twenties, out there patrolling the net, looking for good stories. Their scared and probably are trying to get a piece of the action."
You seem to forget that Fox News is an Oxymoron.
I just don't get you people. You'll sit here and and cheer at the least thought inducing link and revel in its awesomeness. Along comes a real news story and the knuckle-dragging/*****-flinging crew starts to go nuts.
I can just see the same thing happening in this so-called news outlets as they choose which stories to show.
"Why would we want to report on the Genocide going on in Darfur? For the love of god Natalee Hallaway is missing, surely that must be of more importance. Lets go drain the lake."
"Are you serious? Do we really have to do this? Come on, the people don't want to hear any news like this one. It's not uplifting. Civil War in Iraq, that's preposterous. Can I at least present it so that the people will understand?"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200602240003 - bentwookiee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@clevershark: I don't think the author was suggesting that driving tons of traffic to a site was new. Digg is a new concept because all of the users decide what stories are shown on the main page. Slashdot and Fark do not do this.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Chill out, stuffhappens. And. Write. Shorter. Sentences.
- DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Stories about the US Military ***** on Arab Corpses in a prison in a nation they invaded illegally doesn't go down well for most people, so they won't digg it"
Of course they won't Digg it. It breaks submission rule #1 "Quality Technology Content: Is your story technology related? " - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Digg, while nice, is not journalism. IMHO.
Journalism has professional standards. Compare PBS news to Fox "news" and you will understand what I mean.
Digg is a fancy forum for readers to exchange ideas. There's little to no fact checking. In fact, many "articles" posted on Digg have turned out to be false.
/not a slight on Digg, but rather a realization of the truth - NuPi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Media Mogul" -please. Jeff Jarvis has really overstated the facts, and just looks like an attempt on his part to impress his son..."look son, my article got dugg!"
- DASH, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Great Read, Way to start the day!
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Linking to sites isn't journalism. And blogging isn't journalism either.
We're getting boned on journalism lately. The bloggers are squeezing "big media" so even they don't do investigative journalism anymore.
I guess I'm pretty much saying what truspark above says. I'm gonna mod his post up. - cable22, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0 Apparently I'm the only one here who thinks big media won't exist the way they do today in ten years. Hasn't anyone noticed what is going? There aren't a million different sources of news, just distributors. Every article out there comes from Reuters and the Associated Press. CNN, Fox News, etc., all their websites do is pull stories from one of the two sources. And they know one day, people won't come to them anymore.
Their only role is to distribute information, and once more and more people start hearing about digg, why would they waste their time with other media outlets?
Personally, I think the networks ARE paying attention to digg. Do you guys remember that meat story with carbon dioxide treatment this week? The day after it was on digg, it was on Fox News. And why wouldn't it be... I'm betting they have some tech savy people, probably in their twenties, out there patrolling the net, looking for good stories. Their scared and probably are trying to get a piece of the action. -
Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is