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 Double Your Dating
The "Bad Boy Way" To Meet Women Online view!
doubleyourdating.com - You don't have to be a bad boy to succeed with the ladies - but here's a lesson ANY GUY can use...
65 Comments
- StarManta, on 10/12/2007, -10/+49It just *happened* to *inadvertently" cut off the negative press about Comcast? That smells so fishy it would make a lesbian wet.
- antisthenex, on 10/12/2007, -7/+37It's called PR, and it's probably a lie.
This is way too convenient of a mistake. - nacs, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30"rebuttle" should be 'rebuttal'. Hate to be a spelling nazi but it takes seconds to spell check your submission before hitting submit.
- Tialys, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24A lovely analogy.
- Continuum, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16This announcement brought to you by Comcast.
- 10scott10, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10You work for comcast don't you?
- dirtyfratboy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12"Comcast says the feed has been repaired and can be seen on their site here (requires subscription)."
Aw, hell no.
First the mistake. Now you want me to PAY to watch what should have been free? If Comcast wants to gain any trust back, they have to let the people watch what they missed. No ifs, ands, or buts. Demonstrate that you're willing to make yourself look bad, instead of trying to cover up. - saleens281, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10This doesn't make the other story inaccurate... if anything yours is inaccurate for saying the other one is. A rebuttal does not make the other story wrong in any way shape or form. Notice there were no changes made until they were called on it. It's no different than Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction", it's great until you get caught, then you try and cover up.
- mt066, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8These are the same people paying for hundreds of commercials in our area that specifically claim Net Neutrality is some sort of internet-destroying plan implemented by the masterminds at Google. Sorry, LIARS, I don't believe you.
- lordthor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9type less...
I agree with the first part, yes, net neutrality is important.
Stop targeting americans though, it's nationalist *****. We're fighting FOR net neutrality - just because a few ***** want to push against it doesn't mean all americans are too stupid to fight it. Stop scapegoating America. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I couldn't agree more.
Reflects the way a lot of companies do buysiness though doesn't it.
A problem occurs, they ignore it till it gets publicity, then trot out some ***** and bull story (like, "people shouldn't be using our laptop computers on their laps") to try to diffuse things. - teamparadox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Yea like I believe that line of bs...comcast knows exactly what it got and this is damage control.
- bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@twiztedambience:
Don't you mean anti-Comcast interests? This tries to put things straight, to report it as inaccurate is calling them liars and going along with the concept that they censor.
I've known things like this to happen before and they weren't called censoring, they were mistakes. The circumstances just happened to line up this time. - twiztedambience, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Another reason why blogs should not substitute themselves for journalists...
Blog: call up some PR people and ask questions to get the official response. Then write an opinion. It is quicker and gets more views due to the issues that can be talked about without fact checking...
Journalist: call up PR person yet again and hear the same type of stuff, go beyond it and track down the slicer who made the mistake, find out what really happened... - lordthor, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10You're right, my bad. I'm normally a spelling Nazi too, I don't know how I missed that.
- Xentrion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Reporting paradox! :O
(By that I mean that this story is reported as inaccurate, yet it says to report the other story as inaccurate.) - fahrenheitlf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You don't inadvertently shorten a segment when you're encoding a stream unless you're incompetent or the quality controls are lacking. I highly doubt that would be the case with ABC. I only say this because I work in the industry and have insight into the process.
Was it a mistake or not? I don't know. Based of my own knowledge, I would bet money on this being a spin to cover their asses. Don't forget that ABC and Comcast are partners in business. - Zreitan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4i only dabble in video production, but i didnt know encoders worked like that, i know things can get choppy and sputter. but dropping at least 45 secs of video and the process still went on? wouldnt the program go "opps! try again!" and shut down, or re-encode or something...just seems strange....
- kettlechips, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm going to go with my instinct on this one: cover up.
- combatchuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4As far as net neutrality goes, these companies need to realize that they don't own the internet. The internet belongs to us, and if we don't like the way they want to ruin our internet, we'll just go and build another one.
- dirtyfratboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I won't believe in the "mistake" concept until Comcast makes an effort to make an even bigger deal about the sleeping technician than what it would be had the story been broadcast on Nightline. Even then I'd be a skeptic. All in all, I don't trust companies much.
- twiztedambience, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4actually, Mr. Comcast employee - "the fan" does require a subscription.
I wonder how many other comcast workers are scouring digg?
Here's another thought: Why is this article reported as inaccurate? There is nothing to report being inaccurate... it seems to me like someone with comcast interests in mind hit the inaccurate button...
Last I heard, correct facts and an opinion to follow them are not inaccurate.
And by the way - to those who say an ABC guy confirmed it so it cannot be a cover up. Please go and find out how connected the people who cut the tape are to individual ABC shows. From experience, I know many of those slicers are paid through the parent company and work with the smaller company. They cut all kinds of stuff. it is definately something to think about... - lordthor, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10To those saying that it's a lie, RTFA: "ABC said they confim it was an editing error on their part. "
- gcnaddict, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Just like the black X that CNN put over Cheney's face last year.
I love convenient mistakes :P - dirtyfratboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"it doesn't require a subscription, just go to comcast.net and click on 'the fan'
/discalmer -- comcast employee"
Are you kidding me?
Go to your own site, "comcast employee": www.comcast.net/providers/fan/popup.html
Notice you have to sign in, and the disclaimer underneath:
"To view this content, you must be a Comcast High-Speed Internet customer."
Unless that comment was a sarcastic joke aimed at Comcast, then you sir, are an idiot. - author20, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4When I was a Comcast customer, CSRs would routinely hang up if they didn't know about a particular price or package. It would often take 45 minutes to reach a person. Imagine - I was trying to give them business but they hung up on me. I think they recruited from California State Prisons because they were nicer than the Comcast employees who answered phone calls before. Any company with that type of abuse should never be believed. Go Consumerist! Get 'em, and get AOL and AT&T while you're at it. All rogue companies.
- murloSad, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7it doesn't require a subscription, just go to comcast.net and click on 'the fan'
/discalmer -- comcast employee - lordthor, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8FTA: "We noticed your most recent post on the Consumerist about the Nightline segment and wanted to clear up the facts. Comcast receives thousands of news segments from ABC for our comcast.net site and has not edited any of those segments, including Friday night's episode about blogs. We post the segments as we receive them directly from ABC and Nightline.
We have called our contact at ABC and the producer of your segment and they told us that they believe that their encoder may have inadvertently shortened the segment at the commercial break in error. We asked them to re-encode the entire segment, which they agreed to do. We will post the entire segment on Comcast.net as soon as we receive it." - kettlechips, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3So, are you a Comcast employee or just a shareholder?
- nazadus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@lordthor
You can choose to believe it if you want. That's your right. Believe what you want.
However so do other digg'ers. They have that exact same right.
You can choose to take it personal or not. You can choose to make it personal or not (name calling -- "don't be an idiot"). It's all up to you.
Personally, I don't believe it. I think it's just damage control. Heck, I wouldn't even be suprised to see money swap hands so they could "tell the truth and it was ABC's fault" and ABC would accept the money and take the blame. Afterall, let's assume it _was_ ABC's fault, then it's really hard to make them a bad target. I say that, on Comcast's networks _alone_ this happened (supposedly, I didn't watch it so I can't prove it but this is the direct impression I'm sensing). Sorry, but I don't buy it (no punintended :-P).
Maybe it wasn't Comcasts fault. I've been known to be wrong before. But I'll take my chances on being wrong by saying: *cough* ***** *cough* - fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I was not aware that using an overly-aggressive commercial scrubber on one's own footage was unethical.
Man, you conspiracy theorists are something else. - shiftless, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4The black X is for camera calibration. Duh.
- unreal32, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If you hate comcast, you see the story one way - a cover up obviously.
But if you are sane and objective, the simplest explanation is often the best. ABC had an encoding error - happens every day I bet.
All the other explanations don't make sense. WHY would ABC cover up for comcast? Don't say money cause ABC has lots of money and the amount of money to exchange hands would have to be significant. Why would ABC risk its reputation for comcast? It makes no sense. - plkrtn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And now the true problems with Digg appear. The ground Kevin walks on isn't quite as holy as everyone seems to think it is.
- kalleanka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So where can I see the clip now? They said its back, but I couldn't find t on their website. It's not like they post it on the front page.
- plkrtn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And here lies the big problem with Digg that is going to destroy it in the long run. Conspiracy theorists destroying the reporting of news by reporting it as inaccurate when they have no proof that it is inaccurate.
Thank God they didn't have dig when Princess Di died, or JFK was assasinated!
When you have a site that some 100 people seem to be the "daddies" of, producing most of the content... is it really any different to Slashdot? - LocalH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And you've obviously never worked in TV.
- audiocollective, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sure ABC... Don't feel bad, you dont have to cover for your big brother.
- JeffS, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2ABC, a recipient of advertising and other revenues from Comcast, says Comcast did not do this.
- slythfox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"[...] and they told us that they believe that their encoder may have inadvertently shortened the segment at the commercial break in error. We asked them to re-encode the entire segment, which they agreed to do. We will post the entire segment on Comcast.net as soon as we receive it." First of all, Comcast, posting the entire segment on your website is not good enough. What about all those other viewers who aren't from digg, or didn't read that Consumerist article? Instead, for the sake of your viewers, you should show it again.
"We asked them to re-encode the entire segment, which they agreed to do." Ok, seriously. If it was there error, they probably already knew of the problem and were already re-encoding it. I think your statement here is a little... fishy? - shiftless, on 10/12/2007, -12/+12Nice cover up.
- kettlechips, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Yeah it just "happened" to be the segment regarding Comcast that was cut.
- mrcrabman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How can you believe this story from a company that makes a living by screwing millions of people over with their high prices.
- Starskey, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5@dirtyfratboy
But if they didn't try and cover it up (that is, if they truly did in this case), you'd all cry to them about how retarded they are for allowing such content on their site that makes them look bad. Either way, you're all yelling at them for something they did, or something they didn't do. - titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Its bad enough Comcast sold Tech TV
- nargilamonster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1if you spell it rebuttle maybe your TV should be censored even more...
- DavidDigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Of course it was an accident... an accident of good judgment, that is, and what you have here is a cover-up. Usually the cover-up is FAR more elaborate than the original lie, crime, or omission, and I wouldn't be the least surprised to see Comcast bending over backwards to show what a "careless mistake" it all was.
In fact it is quite easy for someone from Comcast to call up their drinking buddy at ABC and call in a favor. Why do people have these ideas that business works in ways more honorable than organized crime? Business is a competitive sport, and those who limit themselves ethically perform much as athletes who tie one hand behind their back. Of course team-building works better when the leader looks like a good guy, but there is a world of difference between looking like the good guy and actually having ethics. (Ebbers, anyone?)
The people with ethics save up a little money to last them a few months, and when they get pressure to do something they feel is unethical, they refuse to do it and, if necessary, quit. Ethical lapses are in fact a rite of passage in business, hazing in other words. A person with no dirt on them really can't be trusted - they have no personal incentive not to blow the whistle.
I would not have believed the small theory above had I not worked in the business sector for the last year. - kettlechips, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1ABC denied it?
- gothsquirrel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I tend to agree that's just something way to convenient to be left out. I mean it could be coincidence. but that is highly unlikely. With the high tech video editing technology that I'm sure ABC has this would be hard to screw up, considering the crap i have on my PC is so easy to use.
- techsquirrel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0After watching the video (before and after) and deciphering all the technobabble about the "edit", I must conclude that the article title "Comcast DOES NOT Censor ABC's Nightline" FAILS the smell test.
-
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is