What is Digg?38 Comments
- Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I find it amusing that the NYT is trying to put itself forward as the vanguard of the internet while still retaining 1995-style login requirements just to look at their articles.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Most journalists these days are glorified blogging whiners, they like to be known as "pundits", anyways. Insensitive, but true. That's not to say that there aren't good journalists out there, but I'm sure the good ones won't have to worry about losing their jobs.
- Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It's gonna be tough for them to gain a good following... especially considering how ubiquitous YouTube already is. They're going to have to offer a little more than just posting videos.
Also, their reasoning is pretty lame... that's like saying "***** those professionals... random Internets people come cheap like Chinese sweatshop workers..." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I was thinking the same thing. Go ahead, New York Times. Screw journalists. The whiners writing blogs and doing video posts really know what they're talking about.
- DeepDoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4all the news thats fit to...
wait, is that a guy lighting a firecracker in his ass on our news site? - monergism, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The editors who publish the content desire a reputation of accuracy.
- mstar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't see this resulting in the loss of any jobs - if anything they are ADDING content...
And to those who say that this means its going the way of YouTube with any moron posting anything then I think you're misguided. Knowing the Times they will probably vet users who contribute and keep it to a small, editorially managable number of trusted users. - IvanB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"They're going to have to offer a little more than just posting videos."
I don't see what more they could offer.. - JSeldin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I am sick of companies trying to create the next YouTube. The next YouTube IS...YouTube. How about creating something new and innovative instead of creating a half-assed, me-too clone of something that worked.
- picardo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2New York Times has been at the forefront of new internet technologies for a long time. I'm not surprised that they are doing this. I thought they were prescient when they hired Khoi Vinh to be the Design Director of Nytimes.com and split the website from the paper so as to give it more independence. At current time, Nytimes.com is more than a digital mirror of the printed paper, but a content generator on its own right. It has blogs, video content, and user forums. This new idea to throw their support behind citizen journalists, though, is probably the best idea that has come out of them. There are many a serious grassroots journalism websites out there that host user-provided content--which may range from breaking news captured from a phone cam to pieces of investigative journalism--and unfortunately these websites are neglected by the mainstream media because they don't have the traffic that Nytimes.com has. That's why this move has the potential to change everything we know about journalism. The much-ballyhooed YouTube revolution may finally hit citizen journalism. I imagine it won't be a catch-all system, like YouTube has, and I expect editorial input, but hey for an aspiring journalist or just a concerned citizen what could be better than being featured on Nytimes.com.
- palmer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm sure it's already on PooTube.
- palmer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"They are assigned a news story, go and interview a couple of "experts", and then write a story. They have very little understanding of the underlying details about what they write."
I was about to object to that characterization of journalism students, but that is indeed where the craft stands today, at least in terms of the popular outlets. Especially on the mark is the reference to this "experts" crap. Put some schmoe on the screen with the label "expert", and you're done.
In the meantime, the story usually fails to answer the first question that a viewer would have.
Meanwhile, the gross overpayment for YouTube will continue to become apparent as Web video hosting becomes a worthless commodity. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wouldn't worry about that if I were you, they are unlikely to make money at it. Anyone who has used their forums that are down at least a quarter of the time understands that until they get a proper IT budget, this is a pipe dream.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My local newspaper, the Tuscaloosa News, (owned by the New York Times), has just started a similar service, dubbed the TuscTube.
http://tuscaloosanews.com/section/TUSCTUBE
(registration required) - mstar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There are no videos for classified - are u referring to the spoof from the Daily Show?
- picardo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, sure, but it's not just a Youtube clone. YouTube doesn't have the same face of credibility that Nytimes has. It might be a good place if you just want people to look at your stuff, but it's not a good place to start a discussion about a topic you care deeply about. Most of the comment you get on YouTube are along the lines of, "That rules!" or "That sucks!" But Nytimes.com would immediately give you a venue to to start a smart, responsible discussion.
- Jerky1312, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1CNN is doing this with videos. They call it CNN I-Reports...
http://www.cnn.com/exchange/ireports/topics/index.html
When the population has the technology as the tv crews, its only logical to encourage people to submit them and use it. - mstar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@RadiantBeing
The print side may have lost money (as are most newspapers these days) , the web side is highly profitable...
@surfmadpig
I doubt they'd get rid of journalists who make video - in fact I imagine they'd expand - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Awesome! What a better source of income than to make money off free content!
- strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How, exactly, is that any different than what is going on already?
- Levich, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Newspapers are going to have to change or die - like any thing else that technology has surpassed... unfortunately for the NY Times, its a bit more complicated than simply offering a service thats been offered for years elsewhere. Maybe they could turn those expensive journalist budgets to contributors who get the most plays?
- monergism, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How are they going to verify sources? An anonymous source uploads a doctored/fabricated video which can lead to libel and defamation of character without recourse.
To those who haven't graduated high-school: photoshopp'ed!!1111. - JakePM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1love how this digg submission had NYTimes adds all around it too - AdSense, Banners etc.
- surfmadpig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0that sounds like an interesting application actually
- JanusAmon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What's with all of the spam on Digg, nowadays? There's way too much of it.
- strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4@foxhaze:
You think people with a journalism major have a clue about anything? They are assigned a news story, go and interview a couple of "experts", and then write a story. They have very little understanding of the underlying details about what they write.
I'd rather read the blog of a major player in than some journalism major who doesn't really know a damn thing about the topics they're writing about. - RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3The New York Times just reported a fourth quarter loss of $648 million. It sounds like they are getting desperate. Meanwhile, I renewed my subscription to the Economist. I'll be laughing when this fails.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/31/D8N0AEB80.html - Petronski, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2***The New York Times, the gray lady of establishment journalism...
She ain't no lady, she's a lying whore. - sonk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0you can credit the Syndicate Conference for this. i remember at the first conference, all the big media companies (including NYT) were freaking out about 'new media'. they were afraid of loosing their shirt. looks like things have changed!
http://www.syndicateconference.com/live/38/ - dadiggdog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The most expensive thing is the journalists themselves. That’s why user-generated content is interesting.
The most expensive thing is the royalties themselves. That’s why piracy is interesting. - positron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The time to change or die was at least 5 years ago. They missed the bus. The only option left them now is what they would like on their gravestone.
- dadiggdog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The most expensive thing is the journalists themselves. That’s why user-generated content is interesting.
The most expensive thing is the royalties themselves. That’s why piracy is more interesting. - bouche, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This is brilliant. I saw some samples of user made video for Classified ads. People showing things that they are selling. Video Garage Sale man! Wicked!
- surfmadpig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@bigdavediode: they are saving money from the journalists they'd pay if it was not for the unpaid users contributing. bastards.
- Anrkist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I'll take a video of my dog pooping.
- profOblivion, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1This isn't a new idea. Didn't Reuters say a few months back that they would try something like this?
- strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Like the ones who published these obvious photoshops?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controversy - AntBing, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5***** the Times. They are too big for their britches.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is