What is Digg?13 Comments
- WinGeek, on 10/15/2008, -5/+9Check out the actual article: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117964264.html?categoryid=1&cs=1
Does not sound too bad to me. It actually has some good points about bloggers. - Detritus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I agree, but I see you're getting buried down...
***** you jetcopter! Don't you understand the importance of blogs?! If even 1,000 people can be reached then they will know the truth that the mainstream-media doesn't want you to know:
My mood is giddy.
My music is something really pretentious that sounds vaguely scandinavian.
Honestly the article isn't really that critical. Firstshowing is just being beligerent. Like the part where he claims that Peter Bart supports denying Bloggers 1st ammendment protection; that is just a complete misrepresentation. The reason Peter Bart brought it up in his piece at all was to try and add some attention to this important issue. If Firstshorting had at least some basic communications education behind it (like real journalists recieve) he'd understand things like "raising awareness". - rabidgnome, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That's a pretty pitiful attack - considering that most of the time he was promoting the blogosphere. It wasn't really an attack or a defense though - it was a commentary.
The blogger then, ironically, did exactly what bloggers do and made impassioned statements against what Bart was saying satirically (and even in support of blogs)
But, of course, digg users are mostly sheep and will form strong, immutable opinions about Variety because the title says Variety is attacking their precious internet - Matri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sounds suspiciously like the RIAA.
- lorductape, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1im in ur magazine attackin ur bloggers
- grazie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dugg down.
This blog is a ridiculous over-reaction to a fair and balanced commentary. It's this type of thing that will neuter to potential power and potency of blogging. Stupid, indulgent, emotionally driven over-reactions - taking things completely out of context just so you seem to have something worthwhile to rant about. - gormenghast, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2both articles smack of who-the-*****-cares
- mcrunch2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Baaaa. Baaad commentary on a ho-hum article - says this sheeple (yawn).
- OgnodoD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm disappointed. I was expecting a rant from Variety based on that title. While I disagree with some of the comments made about blogs in the Variety column, I think that column comes off as being rather tame while the one complaining about the alleged rant (and linked to here) is far closer to being an actual rant. One part of the latter piece that really bugged me:
Peter Bart's column in Variety:
"And then, of course, there's the attitude of the Feds: To U.S. Attorneys, bloggers are not “true journalists” and, hence, not entitled to First Amendment protection."
Alex Billington of firstshowing's response:
"This claim is insane, and the worst part is that Peter Bart believes in it."
Huh? Where in Mr. Bart's column in Variety do you find evidence that he believes in it? Nowhere. Mr. Billington has pulled a sentence out of the entire column, misinterpreted it, and then ranted about it. Hypocritical, no? - n8f8, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Or...ignore it to show them how irrelevant they are.
- oselznick, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Sounds like Variety is running scared. How can they keep up with the internet? They must think the best defense is an offense. Not this time Mr. Bart.
- accidental, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2TLDR.
Old man trying to talk about blogs. /yawn - hackiavelli, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I went back and reread the blog entry thinking I perhaps missed some subtle sarcasm.
Nope.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is