What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
81 Comments
- schnikies79, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Newspapers are far from *****, they are excellent for local news. The internet is seriously lacking in this area, epically in small/rural communities and will continue to lack for a good while. Yea you might be able to chat with someone living in iraq but you can you find out that there was a fire down the road?
People are beginning to ignore everything local and only give a ***** about the national/international scene. - Bleeblaow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Precisely.
I don't understand the huge fascination with bloggers. Most of them cannot replace real journalists because they just read some stories by real journalists and then blurt out their own opinions.
And why is the tendency to list things, numerically, infectious amongst bloggers? Top ten reasons why blahdeeblah. Even this digg has a list of eleven things in it. It's getting annoying. Numbers are not what get my attention, and I have begun to skip whole paragraphs of information, opting to skim the often-emphasized (italicized or boldified) main point(s). It seems as if people enjoy not having their paragraphs flow; separating every idea as if connecting the thoughts would make the reader's puny brain explode. This stuff is unbearable to read. - robbh66, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15For all the people on here who are saying sites like Digg are making newspapers irrelevent:
Where do you think Digg gets most of its news content? Do you think the news fairy magically drums up these stories for people on here to read?
Digg isn't going to kill newspapers. The newspapers would kill Digg by blocking it, however.
P.S.: Bloggers aren't worth their weight in ***** for news. - Sneakernets, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Wow, with internet you get the rough news.
in newspapers you get the accurate information. Everyone knows this. - GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16Two days behind Digg, and Digg is always two days behind CNN.com or the Daily Show. I completely agree. Newspapers take a day or so to go from submitted article to printed paper to shipped packages to arriving at the newstand. CNN.com removes a lot of the wait.
By the way, Digg isn't a good source on up-to-the-minute news. Try Google News. Need proof? Wait for a story with "BREAKING" in the title to reach the front page, and look when it was submitted. Often eight hours ago, or more.
My mom will often say, "did you hear about the today?" and generally I've already known about it from Google News. - postjm9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I really begin to think that no one on Digg lives outside of a major city. If you live in NYC or LA, you can get most of your news from TV or the Web. But until the Internet starts covering school boards and city councils, many of us will still need the local newspaper. The things that affect our lives most directly aren't on CNN.
- Thisisforkeeps, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11What this guy has to say about bloggers sort of bothers me. Journalists go to school to be journalists. A blogger could be some 12 year old kid. Journalists check facts, don't editorialize and try to show the whole picture. Bloggers just show their views.
The two should never be mixed. It's like mixing Little league soccer with the World Cup Champions. - unclesaamm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Our method for saving newspapers will dominate your face.
- Cyre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I'm waiting for the day when I can have a small rollup screen that I can stand near a "newspaper stand", click an icon and have the latest edition of the local news automatically sent to the screen for just a few credits. That's one thing I've read in sci-fi books that I think WILL come true in the near future.
- meepus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Two years behind digg?
I love Digg, and it's meant to serve a different purpose than a newspaper... but all the same, here are a few things Digg needs to fix before it'll be on par with what can be offered by a newspaper:
Horrible headlines. Digg headlines often contain all-caps words like 'breaking' for no reason. Also, you'll frequently see misspellings or completely misleading statements make a headline just to grab for diggs. In a newspaper, if you make an inaccurate headline, you might get fired and the newspaper would run a correction. Digg does no such thing. Also, if you misspell a headline in a newspaper layout, unless it's a bottom of the barrel paper, you're SO fired. On digg, we can't *exactly* fire users, and we aren't exactly held very accountable to accuracy, just general public opinion.
Professional writing. Article descriptions are frequently garbage. If you can't come to terms with this, or you don't realize it... well, consider yourself blessed. It drives me ***** insane to have to read some of the crap people come up with.
Fact checking. On digg, it's left up to the more intelligent users to call people on their BS. Frequently, these intelligent users fall flat, and outright lies make it big on the front page. On a newspaper that isn't run by a Jayson Blair archetype, this would be heresy.
Advertising. On digg, we get an ad. Then, we click a link. Sometimes that link takes us to a blog with more ads, which then directs us to another blog, which then directs us to the real story. If we're lucky, we get the direct story, but this is about 50-50. Oh, and did I mention dead links? Newspapers usually don't overload if too many people are reading them.
The internet does a lot better than newspapers, sure, but newspapers do a lot better than the internet. If we completely abandon professional journalism, we're going to see the news get even more corrupt, more capitalist, and less interesting. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I spent roughly $400 for a week of advertising in the SF Chronicle newspaper and on their SFGate website. The SFGate link sent 2 people - me and the lady on the phone who confirmed my link. Our california traffic didn't spike at all. Worst $400 I ever spent.
- Bleeblaow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Where do you get your local news on the internet?
For most localities the best options are:
- local newspapers' websites
- televised news stations' websites
I'm not going to argue that there are great places to get your news on the internet. But for cities that are not gigantic, local news is not something easy to come by online. - smilesofkarli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6this is REALLY funny to find since my English teacher is going crazy on this subject while we are reading Fahrenheit 451. this is just plain irony to me, but worth reading.
- adragons, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Step 1: Pay your newspaper carriers more. The local newspaper here cannot deliver to half of the city because carriers are quiting left and right. Seriously, .5cents is not enough for them anymore.
- duzytata, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I think newspapers should stay simply for the fact that there is a hard copy for information. 'News' can be changed or deleted instantly on line. When you put it in print, and it's delivered to millions of people's homes, you have a physical piece of information. It can't me manipulated, removed, or changed for what ever reason. They serve as a great way for us to document our history, especially in the unlikely event that something happens to our digital ways of transmitting news.
- jull1234, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I think you might make good friends with my neighbor.. He's more of the "every goddamn newspaper that ever was delivered to me" kind of pack rat, however.
- GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Uh, my comment was supposed to read "did you hear about the event today", but I used brackets so Digg ate the word.
- Murdats, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5wow that link misses the point.
the advantage of free speech is everyone gets a voice
the disadvantage of free speech is everyone gets a voice
this means that with so many people talking, most of them will be talking *****, however it means that some of those who wouldnt usually be able to talk
say some of the most beutiful things. this is what the internet does.
and I get the feeling this is your site sneakernets. you seem to be very anti-internet.
oh and the medium hasnt become the message (most of the time), its just most messages use this medium, because it is usually the best medium - NoStoppingUs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6i was hoping this was about physically saving newspapers. ive been collecting the major story ones since a kid, and theyre just stacked up in a giant pile in my closet. neat to look back through though.
- spudnic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This is why the idea of 'citizen journalists' makes me want to eat my own face.
I watch the news or read a newspaper to get a professional and largely objective overview of something, if I just want some untrained monkey's opinion I'll talk to my friends about it.
The whole idea of it is offensive to the actual journalists who have training and experience, I can't think of any other professions where random people are being invited to do the work of professionals. - UrbanOne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Newspapers, good ones, at least, are important because they bring information to everyone. I find it hard to believe, too, but not everyone has a computer. And they are more portable. Who's going to try to read the news on their laptop on the subway?
Also, newspapers are better at "push" than the web is. I read articles in the paper that I never would have seen or read online. (And I do everything online. Everything.)
Some newspapers are getting it. I think the NYTimes has come a long way. The Wall Street Journal, as well. And why shouldn't content be paid for? They're trying to figure out the business model they should have figured out 5+ years ago. There will be many more casualties, especially with media consolidation. Newspapers have to realize that, like politics, all news is local. And local papers have an excellent opportunity to go back to their roots, hire reporters instead of laying them off, and do what they were supposed to do: dig, investigate, and report the news to their communities. And figure out that opinion has one home: the editorial pages. Whatever happened to objective reporting? Or reporters reporting the news, not being news? Oh, and they need to regain the credibility they lost over the past 6 years of rolling over for Uncle Sam. Well, for Bush. - rpaturi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Newspapers in other countries never die. The reason from my observation.
- In other countries work starts 9am or 10pm giving leisure time to read at home. (US its 8:00am so hardly giving any time to read)
- In other countries public transportaion plays biggest part in commuting so they can read there (its kind of hard to read while driving :)
- In other countries politics etc are being discussed passionately during commute at work and at leisure time and they quote newspapers
(US is a very quite and reserved commutiny) - Agent_M, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Agreed.
I'll be one to admit that I read only a very small percentage of the news that shows up on my RSS feeds. When I pick up a newspaper or magazine, I am more likely to read articles adjacent to the ones that I am interested in.
The subway is the best place to read print periodicals. - LogicBomB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Eliminating bias and increasing the reading level to AT LEAST high-school level would be a damn good start for me.
I read papers the most during election time (in Canada) and I can EASILY tell which side the author is on even if they trying to "report on facts". When you are reporting on the facts, keep your opinoin out of it. The gross use of negative terminology and connotations are sickening to me.
The news in general has become a tangled web of half-truths, opinions and lies. The only paper I really enjoy is "The Metro". It's free, to the point and if I read something terribly interesting I can go online and google it. Although like all the other papers in my area, it's about 4 pages of news and 8 pages of sports and gossip. Keep celebrities out of the paper - their lives ARE NOT NEWS. - LordSkywalker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6They already have a beta version out. It can't be rolled up, but otherwise works the same. It's called a laptop with WiFi.
- crappylinks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The posting is called "How to Save Newspapers" but really had almost nothing to do with the ol' fish wrap... it was more about strategy for the website of the news organization (which, sooner or later I guess, will totally supersede the fish wrap version).
The strategy for saving the dead tree version has not yet been articulated. - subxero37, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There's a large class at my high school that is devoted to putting out a school newspaper every month or so (sometimes, if they've got more content, they'll put out 2 or more in a month.) They love what they do, and I respect their ability to do it. There are many, many articles they write that aren't very interesting -- especially articles about students at the school (ironically -- or purposely -- the students about whom the articles are written are all school newspaper authors. I hate that.) However, there are some very well-written articles in it; the school paper, for many schools, is a great way to get a student started in journalism. Newspapers in schools are a very positive thing.
However, on the go and at home, yes, the internet is taking over. The two problems I have with this are that not everybody has a laptop, so the news isn't always available, and going to CNN.com or whatever causes you to lose the sense of pride (or lack thereof) that you feel when you pick up a local newspaper. You miss out on local stories, you miss out on coupons, garage sale notices, local events -- you really miss out on quite a few things. To be honest, most people will not print out and cut out coupons, but they'll have no problem using those that come already printed from a newspaper.
The internet news sites have their place, and newspapers have their place. It seems that many articles on Digg try to lean towards either choice A, or choice B, but that most of these articles don't realize that people like choice A because it works well for them, and some other people like choice B because it works well for them. This is a good thing. - GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Duzytata
Not many people actually read the "We Were Wrong!" kind of sections in newspapers, where they list any innaccuracies from the previous day. There are often quite a lot...which is one disadvantage of what you just said.
If you want to archive a website, look at archive / cache sites, print the webpage out, save it to your disc, take a screen shot, copy and paste the article into word. It's not at all hard, you've got more options than with a newspaper. - deannnnnn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"For the life of me I have no idea what anyone would want to save newspapers. "
You really have no idea how things work in the world of journalism. There is a Frontline PBS series called "News War" which I highly recommend you watch before you talk crap about news in print. You can watch in its entirety online:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/view/
Part III is the most important part so far, as it deals with the relationship among the 24 hours news channels, newspapers, and blogs. - hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Produce them magazine grade and use the mail as delivery method. Offer to reprint older editions. Newspapers aren't leveraging old content. Pay for content on internet, bad, pay for content professionally printed, good.
- daretogo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6It's called newspaper still? Around my house we refer to it as "dog paper" for obvious reasons. Best source of cheap paper we've found yet. Also sometimes there are coupons!
- lukas88, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Your absolutely right. The usefulness of newspapers is negatively correlated with the growing portability/availability of computers. News is so streamlined now that by the time you have time to sit down with the paper, you have already had a dozen chances to catch up on the news. As the number of people who read the paper by habit grows smaller (sorry, I know that concept is depressing), newspapers will gradually disappear, much to the celebration of trees and tree huggers everywhere.
The only exception I can think of are the free publications that outline local events. Since there is no website that efficiently lists all the local events (concerts, grand openings, open houses, town meetings, protests, charities, etc), I think those will outlive the traditional paper by decades. In denver we have the Westword, and I daresay the westword will probably be the last to go. Which is fine with me, its a damn fine publication. - akatsuki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They are too involved in chasing after the newest thing when they aren't nearly quick enough. Reasoned analysis is why I prefer weeklies like the Economist, and you just don't get that with many newspapers anymore. If you are going to rehash newswire materials and get facts wrong, then don't bother.
- Wolfboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2this is what's replacing newspapers:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/03/23/DDASMUSSENBR.DTL - razorsharp84, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So the main points of this article seem to be, generally, 'embrace current technology.' To me this means scrap the whole paper idea and concentrate on online content. The writer of the article is basically arguing against the usefulness of newspapers, not for it. Perhaps a better title for the article would have been 'How to keep the big media companies profitable in a world where most news is instantly available and free.'
- jull1234, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Are we talking about saving the USPS here?
- kapouet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I read in the newspaper yesterday that a school in my City has been on fire... Oh, Never Mind. That's not a freshly updated story. Heard about that 2 days ago. Not interesting.
I heard in the TV News that only half the population is considering voting for the next Prime Minister next week... Oh, Never Mind. That's not a freshly updated story. That information may be out of reality.
I saw on Digg that An Epidemic is spreading fast in Africa. Bah, I saw that information 3 minutes ago on a blog site. That's out!
Does information has to be THAT up-to-date? - betona, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I like sitting at a table, sipping coffee, quietly reading the paper. I come across things I'd never see online all the time. I like the feel and the format. And I've been online longer than any digger alive (try beating 1977) so it's not like I don't get the online thing.
I'm also not in the least bit worried about saving trees used for paper. Those trees come from farms and they've plant more than they harvest for decades. If you're worried about old growth forests to hug, don't look at paper as the problem. - shaolinpunks, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9why would you want to save a newspaper!?!
- JonnyTrombone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The newspaper where I live was singled out by Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) as the worst in the country. And 100 years later... it still sucks.
- mpstaton, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I think newspapers are dying because they don't actually have a talented staff of news writers with courage anymore. i read newspapers to be informed. i trust journalists. i don't want syndicated crap, i don't want to read about the president every day from an ap newswire. i would pay a lot of money to subscribe to a newspaper that had interesting, well written news. However, all the newspapers are just laying off staff. Not the way to go.
- razorsharp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2People like you are destorying newspapers because you think they're not "edgy" enough. You encourage them to be "brave" but what you really mean is "biased." You come to Digg for your news because you can find biased crap here which is only a couple of Diggs away from being legitamized by a whole community. For some, that's all that's necessary to be fact.
- razorsharp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What an ignorant article. It's sites like Digg which are destroying the news by posting opinion-laced blog posts as "news." Furthermore, the suggestion that newspapers give people blogs is rediculous - the people who write letters to the editor are clearly favoring some bias or the other.
What's great about the media is that journalists are accountable for what they say. That guy who wrote bogus articles for the NY Times won't be able to find a job anywhere but with tabloids. If someone writes a bogus blog and gets called out on it, they can change identities and create a new blog, and no one would know.
Stop treating paper media like it's archaic. Just because this is a technology-centric site doesn't mean we should sacrafice our common sense for the sake of "advancement." The only articles on this site that are ever worth a damn are the ones by relevent media sources; all those blogs and questionable media sources (the obscure ones which are slathered in ads) should always be labeled "rumor." If the traditional media outlets are so broken, why do we require them to confirm or debunk these rumors?
Really, this articles was written by some idiot technocrat who just doesn't get that most American's don't use computers more than they have to. If there is anything wrong with the news, it's the bloggers the article recommends taking advantage of. It figures that this is a) a blog and b) out of San Francisco. Perhaps the reason the news is failing in San Francisco is because those dammed hippies don't want to read about facts - they want to read opinions which are alligned to their own ultra-liberal-the-world-is-going-to-end ideals. - inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Don't know why you're getting buried. You're right.
- SteveSgt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1by wiibuntu: "...but man that's a lot of paper when we have perfectly good computers to read things on."
Do you spend all of your life in front of a computer? I'm sad for you. - psionicman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That reminds me a lot of the feeds or whatever they were called in Transmetropolitan.
Ellis's "Hunter S. Thompson.... IN THE FUTURE!" shtick gets old after a while, but I've always thought that Transmet's vision of the future is probably the most accurate I've ever seen or read. - VeganG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@parasocks:
I know exactly what you mean. The place that I work at needs to hire about 50 people every July for our seasonal work. The in-print classified ads (which we had to pay a lot for) sent us hardly anyone in comparison to the free Craigslist ad. - VeganG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@betona:
Someday you'll be sitting at your table, quietly reading your tablet PC. That day could be today, if you wanted it to be. - unsolicited, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1save from whom?
- yellowsnowcone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's a myth that newspapers are dying. I work for a newspaper that just reported 28% post tax profit margin on revenue. Around the world, circulation is up 4%, especially in developing economies such as China and India, where rapid GDP growth fuels demand for news. Not everyone can afford the internet and newspapers have survived other threats from new technologies such as radio and television. Newspapers are 400 years old and paper itself is a 3,000 year old technology that has survived (and indeed flourishes) in the digital era.
Also, newspapers have long embraced citizen journalism. This famous photo was filed for the AP by a citizen journalist and won its photographer a Pulitzer in 1971.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kent_State_massacre.jpg -
Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 