What is Digg?38 Comments
- SpoonMSU, on 04/09/2009, -0/+21Obama could have rescued that cat faster if Bush hadn't put it so damn high in the tree.
- MortalynFlux, on 04/09/2009, -2/+16One thing I don't like is that every story becomes democrats vs. republicans, eventually downgrading to socialists vs. neocons. The story could be about a rescued cat, and anonymous commenters will still make it about Obama and Bush.
- MaxxusFlamus, on 04/09/2009, -2/+14While I applaud him paying attention to the comments, he should take them with a grain of salt.
The loudest voices don't always represent the sentiment of the whole. Usually they're freepers with nothing better to do. - muckemuck, on 04/09/2009, -5/+15Even though he admitted (at the end of the article) that they recognized the public was against the TARP bailout last Fall they continued to pump out the propaganda and sell it as best they could.
It's a dangerous situation when the masses feel that they don't have a voice and feel that they're being sold lies. That to me is why anonymous (or semi-anonymous since nothing on the web is truly anonymous) comments are so important. - inajeep, on 04/09/2009, -1/+10What I hate is the anonymous well written opinion pieces without references or facts articles that appear in the WSJ.
- quarando, on 04/09/2009, -0/+7Bush doesn't care about cats.
- altgeeky1, on 04/09/2009, -0/+7Bush had no choice but to blow up the cat to protect us from the fact that his father sold the cat some frickin' la-sers.
- divinediva, on 04/09/2009, -4/+10It is too easy to forget that truth by imposing rules that obscure it.
- darkism, on 04/09/2009, -1/+6Comments should always be anonymous and unmoderated. The level of discourse on 4chan is actually quite high, outside /b/ where trolling is encouraged. When you and everyone else are anonymous, without any post counts or reputations or usernames, the conversation stays focused on the topic and not the people involved. If someone offends you, you don't know who to be angry at.
Feaver writes, "Anonymity is what gives cover to racists, sexists and others to say inappropriate things without having to say who they are." That may be true, but so what if they have 'cover'? If you're the sensitive type, then words on the internet may be unpleasant for you to read, but they're not going to jump out of the screen and kill you.
As a product of journalism school, I can tell you that it's rare to see a journalist who 'gets it.' This guy apparently does (even if he didn't always). - morningmatters, on 04/09/2009, -0/+4The author talks about the unsavory parts of the comment section, namely the racism, sexism, and the blatant lies which anonymous people spew out all the time, then goes onto defend the paper's policy of moderation which will happen only if someone complains about a particular comment.
Looking at the WaPo comment section, I noticed that while it has the recommend button it doesn't have the bury button. As the result, if I post random crazy rants people will have to read my comments as they will be shown just like the comment with 500 recommendations. I am not sure why WaPo doesn't have a bury button. The Digg approach, which allows the community to self-regulate is a lot better. - muckemuck, on 04/09/2009, -0/+4no we don't need all of news sources to agree with us... that's why I'm saying it's important that they do allow comments. So even if they are putting out articles that we're opposed to we at least have a very tiny voice.
Those papers (and FOX) were NOT opposed to the TARP bailout. They consistently ran more articles pumping the fear of what might happen if it didn't pass.
....and ..... the vast majority of the voters don't spend time reading comments in articles. They hear what the talking heads on TV tell them and trust that as the gospel. Now show me a mainstream TV media outlet that consistently opposes The War on Terror, and The Patriot Act and I'll feel like I have a voice in the media. - BluMoanin, on 04/09/2009, -4/+8I was disappointed this blogger never blogged about WaPo's allowing George Will to recently publish two opinion pieces regarding climate change where Will's assertions were nearly all false. This was followed by the Editorial Page Editor defending Will's right to publish a contrary worldview, which was a red herring; no thoughtful comment disputed Will's right to be a denialist, they were instead attacking the fact that Will was supporting his opinion with false assertions - and not mere quibbles, but whoppers, e.g., falsely claiming that scientists in the 1970s had peer-accepted global cooling as inevitable when in fact climatologists were already strongly arguing for warming, and falsely claiming that arctic ice coverage was the same now as it had been when in fact ice coverage is much shallower now.
Even though the comments on the on-line version of these articles pointed out the lies Will told along with many letters to the editor and blogs by credentialed experts; the Ombudsman and Editor took no actions to eliminate the risk of Mr. Will or any opinion writer to publish false assertions in their paper, in spite of their having a fact-check process to supposedly eradicate the opportunity for Will and others to lie in the future. I can't imagine a more worthy candidate to blog, yet it went ignored as best as I can tell using this blogger's tags to search his blog. He had no tags for climate change, AGW, and no relevant blog posts appeared when searching by the following tags: environment and science. - Yesplease, on 04/09/2009, -1/+4But...they do have a voice! Even in Washington you have the Washington Times, the WSJ, FOX news and any number of 'inside the beltway' blogs (all of which opposed the TARP bailout). Do you need every paper and news source to agree with you before you think you have a voice at all?
- jsffive, on 04/09/2009, -2/+5I don't really care what the Washington Post has to say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
As little as ten years ago, I would have looked at the above link, and I would have laughed. However, after the lies about WMDs that led us into a war with a nation that never attacked us, I don't laugh anymore. As far as I'm concerned, the Washington Post can go out of business, and everyone there can starve in a ditch, for letting this nation down when it was absolutely crucial that we get the truth.
Is Mr. Feaver having a moment of honesty,? Is he being genuinely laudatory toward the commenters, or is he just trying to curry favor with a diminishing reader base? Who knows? They switch back and forth between the truth and lies at the Washington Post so much, I can't tell anymore...
And I'm tired of wasting my time trying to figure it out.
They tell us lie after lie after LIE, and no one at their news paper ever gets fired for it. ***** the Washington Post. - scojac, on 04/09/2009, -1/+3@muckemuck:
I have to agree with media coverage being one-sided. Or two-sided, as the case may be (liberal rags vs. conservative ones). News is always targeted at a specific population, and meant to be enjoyed by people who hold specific views.
As a result of this, you get a docile public that generally hold similar views. ***** that noise. Even if you're posting anonymously, at least you can get a different message out there. Maybe someone will even read what you have to say and change their minds.
And @Shakermaker:
Why are you here commenting on Digg in a basically anonymous manner if you don't think it will accomplish anything? Isn't this conversation we're having 'worth it'? Democracy is dependent on the free interchange of ideas. And this is a new way of doing that. Just look at Anonymous vs. the Church of Scientology - in that case, scientologists will come after you if you identify yourself. Sometimes anonymity is a powerful tool, not just an excuse or disguise. - oninbonin, on 04/09/2009, -1/+3"We journalists need to pay attention to what our readers say, even if we don't like it."
WOW imaginge that! People that you spoonfeed your ***** to have thoughts also! Revelation of the ***** century here! - Licurgo, on 04/09/2009, -0/+2amen bro
- Shakermaker, on 04/09/2009, -1/+3That logic doesn't really work. Saying "People are upset and feel that they don't have a voice"....and then say "So they post anonymously" doesn't make sense.
You can't complain that no one is listening to you if you don't make yourself be heard.
Ghandi's message would have gone completely unheeded had he remained anonymous. Same with MLK. - Licurgo, on 04/09/2009, -4/+6they shouldn't be tolerated S/
what do you want?politically correct lies? , the anonymous, the kids and the drunks always say the truth - charlie6969, on 04/09/2009, -0/+2Well, guess I am a racist too, then.
Funny, I thought I was against the law-breaking; not the people.
my bad. - quarando, on 04/09/2009, -1/+2I don't think the anonymous speak truth, they just reveal the truth about public ignorance, anger and prejudice.
- thespiff, on 04/09/2009, -2/+3Well...I'm glad the retired guy gets it...
- Nosferotu, on 04/09/2009, -0/+1This made some good points, and still managed to be SHOCKINGLY uninteresting. I thought all this stuff was pretty clear to anyone with half a brain.
- uselessexpert, on 04/09/2009, -1/+2FTA: As Oscar Wilde wrote in a different context, "Man is least in himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."
That is a very true and power quote! - TheMachine1, on 04/09/2009, -0/+1Some one needs to write a web based application / service that generates a phony reference and link to it for anything you say.
- evilempire, on 04/09/2009, -0/+1Naw - most commenters are blathering retards with a huge chip on their shoulders. They should ignore them and focus on actual news. Focus group testing something to death is the fastest was to ruin a product.
What they need to do is stop buying out/laying off reporters to replace them with J school grads. - MacEnvy, on 04/09/2009, -4/+5It's proper to place quote marks and an attribution to someone else's words, Ms. Diva.
"I believe that it is useful to be reminded bluntly that the dark forces are out there and that it is too easy to forget that truth by imposing rules that obscure it."
-Doug Feaver - nepidae, on 04/09/2009, -0/+1He may tell you the truth, but he will tell you much much more than that.
- nepidae, on 04/09/2009, -0/+1You shouldn't because you are a moran.
- shylove, on 04/09/2009, -0/+1What's the mutter with him anyway. At least something mutters to me but I draw the line at giving out my mutter's maiden name!
It is a crime that sometimes when I mutter to myself I suspect I even hate myself!!
Considering how little was mentioned during Huffington & Puffington's reign, I think some people were afraid to have their name known for fear of getting Wilsoned! In fact with the CIA out on domestic surveillance it may still be a bit tricky saying anything critical.
Playing the Plame game doesn't help much... - jshhmr, on 04/09/2009, -0/+1Oh great, since I am against illegal immigrants I am a racist? News flash for the Post: There are illegal immigrants from all over the world, including Europe. Race has nothing to do with it!
- Nezello, on 06/11/2009, -0/+0Let’s see there’s lawyers representing Barry Soetoro a/k/a Obama because he needs them for what? Perhaps they are trying to keep information from the public as in:
Barry Soetoro a/k/a Obama
1) Where were you REALLY born?
2) What is your REAL name?
3) Are you secretly a Muslim?
4) Why did you have your records at Columbia University SEALED?
5) Why was your wife Michelle disbarred from being an attorney?
6) Did you travel to trouble-torn Pakistan on an Indonesia passport at the age of 20?
7) Did you cheat on your wife Michelle with both a man & a woman?
8) When did you stop using drugs?
9) Are you connected to the shooting death of Donald Young?
The "DOC" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same document is easily obtainable for children NOT born in Hawaii (in 1961 HI issued BC’S to foreigners). The true " Microfiche birth certificate” – which includes info like the name of the birth hospital, attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny. - hdunnigan, on 04/09/2009, -2/+2At my newspaper the funniest comments are the ones denouncing the global warming fraud in every story about the weather. heh.
- monvalley, on 04/09/2009, -0/+0Comments are posted without Washington Post review? What's more scary; comments posted unfiltered or screened by a newspaper? Since news-media already decides what is news opposed to reporting all news, what's wrong with unreviewed comments. ABC, NBC. CNN and minor cable networks have all decided that the so called Tea Party demonstations are un-newsworthy, so go unreported; while a dozen protesters for corporate bonuses have a news reporter following of nearly 100 reporters. Maybe they are afraid that this news may get out and have to be reported on in major newspapers and networks.
- inactive, on 04/09/2009, -1/+0Yes, I totally agree about paying attention to the eclectic feedback of the web. The part that I don't get though is why I should be paying attention to some hack from the WP.
- inactive, on 04/09/2009, -1/+0He gets it at last
- halftank, on 04/09/2009, -4/+2@least don't allow comments on stories involving someone who's died (obits, murders, etc.), that's when the real SIMPLEtons come out.
- Susarodr1981, on 04/09/2009, -3/+0Happy end
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is