digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at a.viary.com

The Death of News Credibility

a.viary.com — I've been watching the steady decline of journalism since the Internet began replacing print and television as the main provider of news, with a seething disgust.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Felixthecat71, on 05/28/2008, -13/+33I believe in 2000 when the "news" called the Presidential Election and then had to rescind their announcement, begin the era of speed-reporting. The Internet allows the public to obtain news as a super fast rate, hence, if you do not capture the attention of the reader at first glance - forget the story. As we now see, misleading headlines provoke curiosity, which captures the potential reader into the story itself. We then find that the story is not what the headline indicated and worse, at times, it simply is false. The author's interpretation - twisted and switched to fulfill the authors vision, not based on facts, becomes the story. If you continue to read article after article, you realize that at best, you have to read the story written the list of false stories in Journalism. The race to be the first has lead to a careless system, and unfortunately, no one cares. For example, you have the Daily News in NY endorsing Hillary Clinton, but their writers trash the Senator at every turn. Oddly enough, one is a sports writer. Insignificant, but at the same time, tragic.
    • CrazedLeper, on 05/28/2008, -2/+17The national media committed "integricide" a long time ago. The only way to get the truth out of them now is to assume that the truth is the opposite of whatever the talking heads say.
      • boot20, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3Why you are being dugg down can only be attributed to astroturfing. You're dead on.
      • known, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Print media is devoid of "objective point of view".
        We need a Media Rating Service in order to
        1. Stop propagating "sarcasm and hypocrisy" in the society.
        2. Promote "objective and positive point of views".
      • MiddleOfNowhere, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1I don't know.
        The article linked here complains about sloppy research and sensationalism.
        Sloppy research admittedly is a problem. But now that we get our facts online, a lot of eyes and quick updates ensure that false stories can be corrected "on the fly", and often they are.
        What worries me more than sensationalism (which was always a part of the business, just like lengthy, well-researched background articles and everything in between) is something else.
        Every basement-dwelling Jack and Jill can put up a weblog and let the world know about what he found in his navel this morning or on another blog or Google News. That's all fine and dandy. But real-world journalism requires sending human beings (journalists and photographers) to foreign places, which tends to cost a lot of money. A paper is a business, and when times are rough, they will try to save money.
        So more and more papers rely on a steadily shrinking number of sources. And this leads to a homogenization of sources.
        A monoculture with very few sources (agencies) and many outlets using their material means that many mainstream media will essentially use the same material and do very little to enrich it with background information and commentary. And of course, fact-checking becomes harder, too when you only have one guy flown in instead of two or three independent sources.
        E.g., I used to check the four or five relevant news portals in my country, but that's not required anymore. Both the words and the sequence of the top stories are often the same in all of them, with a few negligible variations. However, there is no spooky New World Order conglomerate, no conspiracy behind this (we're not the US ;) - It's just companies saving money by buying and printing the same stuff as everyone else.
        And that scares me.
        I can live with sensationalism (e.g. by avoiding it).
        But I can't live without pluralism.
    • oldgal, on 05/28/2008, -0/+6This short TED lecture gives a good explanation: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/248
      • PhilLesh69, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1I agree with the basic points of this video, that Americans pay more attention to idiotic, trashy stories about celebrities and that sort of thing.

        However, her arguments are flawed. "Besides one-person mini-bureaus, no network has a presence in Africa". Ever heard of stringers or freelancers? Not to mention that in some countries, the level of interest or the amount of news cannot merit the costs of having anything more. Should Mauritania have an office of 10 or 12 people, just to satisfy the concept of equal coverage?

        We have jet planes and these series of tubes nowadays. If the news situation merits it, reporters can be flown in, and information can be transmitted instantly.
      • PhilLesh69, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1I forgot to add that, if you put any country's news coverage under that same microscope, you'll amazingly find that the coverage always tends to skew towards domestic stories, and stories that are of interest to people in that country.

        If Mexico had troops in some country, you'd see the same ratio of stories as in this country, a lot of storeis about mexico and a lot of stories about where those troops were.
    • pear1jamten, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2NY daily news and post endorsed Obama... NYT endorsed clinton... get your facts straight.
    • banthis, on 05/28/2008, -0/+6ABCNNBCBS= BS

      right?
    • PhilLesh69, on 05/28/2008, -0/+6I witnessed, firsthand, how the media has become less credible in 2000 - 2001 while working for Kiplinger Washington Editors. They laid off all the copy editors and alot of the research reporters.

      During that recession, they laid off a lot of the people who worked hard to ensure that the stories being reported were published accurately, grammatically correct and factually verifiable.

      You can see it if you read Newseek or Time, the stories are riddled with errors, ranging from missing words to convoluted sentences that you have to read three times just to figure out what the author was trying to convey, to erroneous statistics and figures.

      The media has always been biased. Humans write the stories, after all. Everyone has their own biases, and it is impossible to write without inflecting your own bias into a story. The real problem nowadays is that the media has eliminated the people who attempted to prevent blatant bias from completely overrunning their reporting.
  • gypsi, on 05/28/2008, -29/+10and what's this? more blog punditry. you're the problem - asshat.
    • jaxomlotus, on 05/28/2008, -3/+13Yay for trolling!
    • crackedlogic, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1he is complaining about the exact problem that he is himself adding to. "I've been watching the steady decline of journalism since the Internet began replacing print and television as the main provider of news, with a seething disgust." People read blogs for their news. CNN probably feels that they have to crap out news faster than anyone else otherwise people will just go to blogs for their news.

      Why anyone goes to Blogs for news is beyond me..but alas...
    • InfamousAtheist, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Quite the contrary - bloggers keep the MSM honest, or at least alert people that the MSM is regularly full of crap.
      • GratefulGroover, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1well the overwhelming percentage of the public knows the msm is at least full of a little *****. It would be a lot more useful for blogger to start providing people with an outlet for this rage, as well has a way to do something about it.
  • EatingPie, on 05/28/2008, -13/+92I fully agree, though I think there is more to this than the Internet itself.

    News organizations are also highly biased, but it's only been in the last 4-5 years that said bias has begun to affect credibility. Let me do a case in point...

    During the Swift Boat Veteran fiasco, George Bush eventually came out and condemned all negative advertising including the Swift Boat Veteran ad. When asked if he meant the Swift Boat Veteran ad, he replied, "I mean THAT AD."

    The New York Times ran a headline reporting that "George Bush condemns negative advertising, but fails to single out Swift Boat Veterans." This headline is untrue given what Bush actually said, but when I confronted the editors, they refused to even own up to a mistake, and called this a "nuance" of the news. Their unabashed disdain for the President outweighed their charter to report truthful information. (Every paper is biased, but in this case, the bias became so strong it led to an untrue headline.)

    Sites like Digg have compounded this problem. On Digg, if you don't support Obama, your article has no chance of making the front page. And indeed, I've seen untruthful content or untruthful headlines make it to the top of Digg simply because they were popular. The Keith Olbermann "Shut the Hell Up!" commentary was extremely popular, when in fact the President had "shut the hell up" for 3 years, and only said something when asked point-blank. Olberman's attack was based on bad information, but that didn't matter because it was something Diggers in general wanted to hear.

    By making such articles popular, and driving more hits to sites, that encourages news outlets to focus on numbers rather than journalistic integrity. As if general bias wasn't enough, now news by news popularity is influencing media outlets, and truth takes a back seat.

    -Pie

    • badqat, on 05/28/2008, -3/+40Wait...there's an obvious Obama bias on digg? Are you sure?
    • jecruzs, on 05/28/2008, -8/+14Why do you sign all of your posts?
      • OriginalLucid1, on 05/28/2008, -7/+4Because he values proper writing styles?
    • Swarms, on 05/28/2008, -3/+19I'd love to digg you up more than once. Digg's users are part of the huge problem with news, and blogs, in general. Bloggers can post a rumor without any evidence and get the story dugg. It is now accepted as fact when it originated with someone's guess. An inaccurate story gets rushed to publish, gets dugg 6,000 times, gets disputed and proven false 2 hours later, but the rebuttal never makes the front page. And it's not really digg's fault, it's the users who have huddled together in a big groupthink tent. People who don't follow the herd here are never heard, so why bother speak up?

      How many sensationalist headlines did you see about the RFK comment Hillary made, for example? "BREAKING: Hillary says Planning to kill Obama.!!" It's ridiculous. Sites like this have become checkout-line tabloids that only need to be interesting for a minute, not true. But sites like this also make the big bucks and are getting more attention, so mainstream news is starting to notice and adapt, when they're not exactly following a helpful trend.
      • funkywood, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2It's the duty of all fair minded Diggers to bury false news.
        • Swarms, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately fair minded Diggers are outnumbered hugely.
    • UnbiasedDigger, on 05/28/2008, -7/+9"Sites like Digg have compounded this problem. On Digg, if you don't support Obama, your article has no chance of making the front page. And indeed, I've seen untruthful content or untruthful headlines make it to the top of Digg simply because they were popular. The Keith Olbermann "Shut the Hell Up!" commentary was extremely popular, when in fact the President had "shut the hell up" for 3 years, and only said something when asked point-blank. Olberman's attack was based on bad information, but that didn't matter because it was something Diggers in general wanted to hear."


      I totally agree with you. This is why I highly suggest that Digg ban all political news or at least news that can be used to put forth a certain group's agenda. Once you allow people to post articles because they don't necessarily find them interesting, but rather because they want to force their opinions on to others, you open pandora's box.

      As I said before, notice the pro-Obama bias on digg vs. the anti-Clinton and McCain bias. This paints a misrepresentative picture of each candidate. Obama is seen as some sort of saint while Clinton and McCain are portrayed as pure evil. Obviously, if you only "digg" positive Obama articles and negative Clinton/McCain articles while "burying" negative Obama articles and positive Clinton/McCain articles you are going to have BAD REPORTING of news. When you disseminate "selective" news based on a few members who gang up to put forth their own agenda the result is the epitome of BAD REPORTING. Let's take Hitler for instance, obviously a very very bad man. But lets say the media only reports all the positive traits he has and did not talk about the evil atrocities he has committed. The result is that people will think he is a good man. (watches the digg.com community alter this and say that I'm comparing Hitler to Obama)

      Now what's worse is that you'll be surprised by how many people use Digg as their main news source rather than looking at a variety of news outlets to get a broad view on things. These people will get a biased account of what is going on in the world. If all you read was Digg.com, I bet you would vote for Obama. This only leads to a vicious cycle, because that "converted" supporter will now further "digg" pro-Obama/anti-Clinton and McCain articles. The result of political diggs on digg.com? People being misled and using their power to vote to influence the future of America.
      • fyngyrz, on 05/28/2008, -1/+4Digg's problem is that it relies on the public's taste; when the public, in point of fact, has none.
      • mine12345, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0...i'd really like to know how many people just go down the line & dig titles they like instead of reading the actual articles =P

        too many people seem to have there opinions formed before they even look at the articles have the time anyways...


        isn't the point of reading the news to "learn" about what's going on in the world? ...not just bitching about it/sigh
    • aargh01, on 05/28/2008, -4/+10Speaking of Digg bias, it's entirely likely that before long, although your comments are (as far as I've seen) intelligent and though out, you will get dugg down simply for the incredibly pretentious act of signing each post with a short version of your username (so, I assume, that people know who wrote the post) despite the fact that it is quite visible right next to each post (and is there so that people know who wrote the post).

      The fact of the matter is that people like to hear what they want to hear. Part of the problem with news being a commercial enterprise is that it will pander to its audience, because otherwise it won't make any money. That's simple economics, and whoever thinks news corporations are any different than other corporations doesn't understand basic capitalism. (i.e. FOX lives on, despite its blatant and horrific news biases, because lots of people watch FOX.) Strangely enough, here in Canada, the government-funded news service-the CBC-is often the most unbiased and accurate news service. Who would have thought government control would equal actual news?
      That said, though your point is valid, Digg also creates another effect: that of consumer awareness and grassroots movements. Though, for example, FOX gets a bunch of hits on a news story that is eggregiously anti-truth (because it hits the front page on Digg and people click to satisfy their need to be outraged), it also means that they may get hit by a huge slew of critical email, their sponsors may get hit with boycott letters, and their news anchors and CEOs may get hit with whack-loads of hate mail.
      You may not see the direct results of these kinds of responses as of yet, but corporate entities are notorious for their sluggish response to new technologies, and the world of social news sites is very young, as is the understanding of the importance of internet economics. Give it a little time and the pendulum may move away from encouraging biased/untruth news as the response of the masses becomes more visible in economic terms (which, in the end, are the only terms corporations can understand).
    • Hangly, on 05/28/2008, -4/+3Yes, the Obama and Paul run strong on Digg, but Digg is hardly an information monopoly.
      Let Digg have its bias. In the same hour I read a pro-Obama digg article I can see the same issue analyzed from hundreds of different angles by going to other sites with different biases.

      That is not at all like the TV news, who all seem to be on the same page a distressing amount of the time, and where no real debate takes place.

      If, for example, the "debate" over whether to invade Iraq had been on the internet, the WMD story would have been analyzed, dissected, and discredited in only a matter of hours.
    • twrife, on 05/28/2008, -1/+4So insightful. I'm glad I have you on my friends list. Your comments are always a good read.
    • 0xABADC0DA, on 05/28/2008, -3/+1Independent studies show across all the major news media (fox, abc, cbs, ncb, cnn, msnbc, etc) there is about 60% pro-conservative reporting to 40% pro-liberal. So if you really want to talk about news bias and use a 'case in point' choosing a liberal one shows you've bought in to the 'liberal media' propaganda.

      The reason digg favors Obama and liberal stories is because its readers want to read those stories, and because reality has a well-known liberal bias. The reason news sites as shown by these studies put on more conservative favored news is because their corporate and Project for the New American Century backers tell them to -- that's an entirely different form of bias from digg.
      • LeadOffMan, on 05/28/2008, -0/+560% pro-conservative? You're kidding right? What are you smoking?
      • IJstickI, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2haha. Where in the world did you get those stats? Huffington post? Fox is about the only right leaning news channel.
      • tomasII, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Right, every reputable study defies your statement. The media is liberal and run by liberals....I can't believe Michael Moore is on Digg and calling himself 0xABADC0DA
    • EatingPie, on 05/28/2008, -1/+5Just to be clear, 0xABADC0DA, I read the New York Times for 12 years.

      The NYT has a liberal bias, and became very very anti-Bush as his presidency progressed. I know this because I saw it happen on a daily basis, not because I'm buying into some propaganda. More importantly, I didn't care! Every news source is biased. Every single one (which makes the Iranian government forming an "unbiased" news site simply layered with hilarity!).

      The trick is to KNOW the bias, and read the articles with this in mind. For example, the NYT was pro-abortion. They would run articles leading with pro-abortion information (quotes from Planned Parenthood appeared first, etc.), and then run the anti-abortion information late in the article. Because of the "inverted pyramid" of journalism, most people don't read beyond the first two paragraphs of a newspaper article, and this is the most influential section to put information. But on these "hotbed" issues, I always read the WHOLE article to make sure I had a more well-rounded view of the news.

      I find it foolish that we try to prove news agencies are unbiased, or 60% this or 40% that. You should read the news agency you like, know their bias, and make sure you take that into account when you read their articles. THAT is the only way you'll ever get close to a truthful representation of events.

      However, as I said before, it became a problem when the NYT abandoned truthfulness ENTIRELY in certain situations. They twisted the news to the point that you could not get "well rounded" out of it no matter how hard you tried. THIS is where they crossed an ethical line for me.

      -Pie
  • chicofaraby, on 05/28/2008, -18/+47Yeah well, the corporate media said that Al Gore claimed to invent the internet. He didn't.
    The corporate media said Iraq was chock full of deadly WMD. It wasn't.
    The corporate media tells me that inflation is low. It isn't.
    The corporate media tells me that joblessness is low. It isn't.

    Why should they have any credibility? They may as well report on Brad Pitt. That's all they appear to be good for.
    • masterm1nd, on 05/28/2008, -16/+8That's four things, some of which aren't even correct. For example not finding WMD does not necessarily mean they did not exist. I can find internet sources which claims each of those falsehoods, plus a millions of others. For example Bush being a reptilian shape shifter.
      • Terasiel, on 05/28/2008, -7/+4"For example not finding WMD does not necessarily mean they did not exist." You might as well be saying that Osama Bin Ladin was hiding in Sadam's palace during the invasion. It would only make sense if you wanted it to; but not in the real world.
        • masterm1nd, on 05/28/2008, -1/+5Lol, "It would only make sense if you wanted it to; but not in the real world."

          Seriously though, I don't know what your point was.
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/28/2008, -2/+3Saddam was also hiding magical unicorns in his underpants.

        Do you believe those exist? Where is your evidence to disprove this indisputable fact?

        Just because nobody didn't find them doesn't mean that they don't exist.

        // blank neocon smirk, and a little drooling from the lobotomy
        • masterm1nd, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1What reason did we have to believe Saddam had magical unicorns? I think you know where I'm going with this. Are you really arguing that not finding something means it did not exist? Because it doesn't, even with your "poising the well" unicorn fallacy
    • DaDrake, on 05/28/2008, -6/+2Often the corporate media is REPORTING on the position of the administration or intelligence reports (as with WMD in Iraq). They have no way in verifying the information and it would of been bias not to report it since so many country supported (although wrongly) the intelligent reports of the USA. Then again, intelligence historically always been inaccurate to some degree.
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/28/2008, -1/+5They should only report on verifiable information. Otherwise, it isn't news, it's propaganda.

        If they insist on reporting on what the government says without any proof then all those reports should be given by a sad clown to clearly indicate the bias in the source. The clown should often snort and laugh cynically and say, "Yeah, right, like the politicans aren't lying to us again." at the end of every report.
    • bdbr, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4Employment rates, inflation rates, and home sales are reported by the government. The "corporate media" just tells you what they said. They'll even tell you who said it. They won't verify it, of course.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/28/2008, -3/+2You've met people who have lost their job, I haven't and unemployment is quoted at 5 or 6%. I suppose you have a lot more credibility than corporate news. I actually trust profit motives much more than whatever it is that makes people like you tick.
    • seraph582, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1Well, you're right except for the joblessness. You might just live in a *****-hole. I get 6-figure job offers constantly in Atlanta.

      your point gets across anyway though
    • brundlefly76, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1I dont remember commercial media telling me there were WMD in Iraq - I remember the Bush administration telling the world that, and actually remember the media being pulled along grudgingly with that argument along with the rest of us (although Fox news much less then the rest).

      And as for inflation and joblessness, I think the corporate media has been quicker to play Chicken Little than anyone. They love bad news.



  • GratefulGroover, on 05/28/2008, -4/+31so the msm is not credible... how is this news?
    • Hangly, on 05/28/2008, -2/+1The MSM hasn't said yet that they aren't credible, so it's just a conspiracy theory.
    • thatsthewayitis, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1My parents still think the msm is credible news. They are part of that huge population (and huge voting bloc) known as the baby-boomers. I imagine most baby-boomers still believe in their msm since they grew up on it when it was actually reporting unbiased news and not spin....very sad. I try to tell them to not believe what they hear from the big 3 news sources and to go to the internet. But the furthest they go on the internet is to cnn.com. Yeah, that solves it!
  • masterm1nd, on 05/28/2008, -10/+9My problem with internet news is first of all the sensationally inaccurate headlines. Secondly, with thousands of different sources, each of them can lie a million times and we'll never know about it. No one holds them accountable simply because there is so much ***** being spewed by so many different sources it's not even possible. Do they post a retraction, of course not. It's much harder for CNN or FOX to blatantly lie because the other networks call them on it. If the network lies it hurts their credibility, whereas it has virtually no effect on an internet source, or arguably a positive effect if the source has a cult following who want to be told lies and want others to be told lies they find politically convenient
    • UnbiasedDigger, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2I agree with you 100%. As much as people hate on Fox News, at least it is accountable and held to public scrutiny. When you are on the internet, it is so much easier to do what you want. This is why you have so many "niche" sites. They are sites that just pop up and do not have any credibility whatsoever. It's just some person or a select group of people who decided that one day they will start some site to disseminate their agenda to everyone. Then as you said, a cult starts following it which gives a false sense of "credibility." And before you know it, people start using it for news and citing it for evidence and then it appears on digg.com.
      • masterm1nd, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Ha, as accurate as your comment was, I wasn't expecting the laugh at the end. Awesome.
    • Haoie, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1To add onto this, sensationalism in traditional media isn't a new occurance, either.

      Tabloid style newspapers and trashy magazines [you know which ones] offer plenty of chirpy non news, gross out stories, and good old fashioned lies.
      • masterm1nd, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1I hope I didn't imply that traditional media is perfect. All media has flaws, which is why it would be best to get a balance of each. In comparison though, the internet takes the cake for sensationalized headlines. I'm not sure tabloids are very representative of an average for traditional media.
    • krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1but most of the diggers feed into this by digging the crap that cracked.com even wrote about. cracked was making fun of diggers, and diggers frontpaged the cracked article. stop falling for: lists, superlatives (best, most), exaggerations (amazing, stunning, breathtaking), timing (ever, of all time), inflammation (caps, exclamation points), and filler questions (what do you think?)

      and then there's punditry. the last 5 years basically destroyed the barrier between the news and opinion section. the vast majority of "news" isn't news -- it's just punditry -- opinion. digg hasn't been a news aggregator so much as an opinion aggregator. you'll see a headline like "why did obama .... ?" despite the fact that not a single person in the article talked to obama or anyone from obama's campaign. it's all speculation and guesses. the only people whose opinions are worth paying for are doctors, lawyers, engineers, and executives, and the staggering majority of these pundits are none of the above.
  • Inflammo, on 05/28/2008, -14/+2***** CREDIBILITY SUCKS!

    /obligatory
  • zerhynn, on 05/28/2008, -5/+3Good Night, Sweet Prince. You will be missed.
  • Tomholius, on 05/28/2008, -6/+3dugg for the shweet banner with the crazy birds
  • MrESaulved, on 05/28/2008, -7/+2Let's try this: msaleen and MrBabyMan in a cagematch.

    Too much influence with no meaningful explanation is undesirable in any system.
  • SilverBlade2k, on 05/28/2008, -0/+14News became less credible when they became news manipulators and filters.
  • CleverDan33, on 05/28/2008, -5/+8News lost all credibility when they gave Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 a 10/10.
  • Equinox1, on 05/28/2008, -1/+9News lost all credibility with the Mass Effect story.
    • pear1jamten, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1and when did Mass Effect start?? oh thats right 100's of years ago.. its nothing new.
  • Kajico, on 05/28/2008, -0/+5I'm surprised how fast people now analyze news articles, I just saw that pop on CNN not so long ago and somebody is already tearing it apart. Though I pretty much the same thing as the article after I read the story.
    • pidgas, on 05/28/2008, -1/+3Of course he got it completely wrong. He analyzed the hell out of a straw man.
      • Hangly, on 05/28/2008, -1/+3And we analyzed the hell out of him. The system works.
  • DaDrake, on 05/28/2008, -3/+11First, I don't think this is true for large news outlets. Because of the internet, mainstream media is being watch like a hound dog and the message can spread quickly; the Dan Rather story highlights how blogs and other groups can keep the mainstream media in check. While its true that the internet often spreads rumors and falsehoods... that is more of a problem with our education system then the media. Students should be taught that ALL MEDIA is biased.... in fact, you won't find a phd that saids peer-review journals aren't subjected to bias.

    Children should be taught that all media is bias... they should learn how to view a debate from both sides. Instead of reading one article about the GI Bill in the WSJ ... they should read one at the huffingtonpost (liberal bias) and then one at the national review (conservative bias). While the majority of americans won't fully agree with either position... it allows them to form their own position. You can ONLY understand a debate when you have actually listen to both sides. If you watch only Olbermann or Rush Limbaugh .... you are not going to be a well rounded individual.
    • moocow1452, on 05/28/2008, -0/+5"If you watch only Olbermann or Rush Limbaugh .... you are not going to be a well rounded individual."

      But if you watch both, your brain would explode, along with the collective universe.
    • badqat, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Unfortunately, balance and pragmatic thought hold little value in our society.
    • UnbiasedDigger, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2I totally agree with you. It is inevitable that all news will have a slight bias. People write these articles and it's almost impossible for one to write from a total objective standpoint. However, it's another issue when you totally run wild with the bias, that is unprofessional.

      Like you said, the best way to combat this is to get your news from various outlets. Do not just go to one site that is either liberal or conservative. And for Christ's sake don't get your news just from digg.com where every other article is from HuffingtonPost.com. It's basically taking the best of the best (or worst of the worst depending on how you look at it) from already radical liberal sites. So in the end you get the most filtered down selective biased news pieces you can find.

      So for all you diggers out there, if you really are starting to get into politics or even just news with social issues, please be open-minded and use a variety of sources.
    • buckrogers1965, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2But our team has to win.

      RAH! RAH! RAH! GOOOOOO TEAM!

      [ Sad to say that most people put as much thought into their political beliefs as they do into their sports team picks. And are as blindly, idiotically my side is right, your side is wrong, loyal as any fanatical sports fan. ]
  • mrzack, on 05/28/2008, -2/+6When you trust your Television, what you get is what you got, cause when they own the information, ohhh, they can' bend it all they want.
  • mal1964, on 05/28/2008, -8/+4"Pot calling the kettle black"
  • repick3, on 05/28/2008, -1/+9How do we know this article is credible >_>
    • nomadbea, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2It's some sort of credibility paradox!
      • stealthc, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Won't that hurt the spacetime continuum?
  • SpikeLee, on 05/28/2008, -2/+6The mainstream media are still the ones that give us the news. CNN.com, MSNBC.com, ABCNews.com, etc. Other 'alternative' news sites that give news are laiden with opinion. Those sites include The Huffington Post, Daily Kos and NewsMax.com. And sites like InfoWars are so full of ***** and misinformation that they aren't even listed in Google News feeds. The positive thing the internet has done is it has led to a repository of news. That is the great thing about it, but the news still comes from mainstream sources. Of course the greatest site to fact check is Lexis-Nexis news detabase. Of course, you gotta be in a newsroom or a college campus to acces those.

    Of course, people need to talk about the darkside of the Internet. How many believe that Obama is a Muslim?
    • mike17032, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2Exactly. "Old Media" isnt going anywhere, its just adapting to a new format.
    • UnbiasedDigger, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2I agree with you. The major news sources have at least have more of a history of credibility and professionals hired to do newsreporting. A slight bias is inevitable in all newsreporting, it is human nature. The major news sources are also held to a higher public scrutiny than those "alternative" niche sites you mentioned who are free to run wild and do whatever they want. By the way, did you notice how every other digg on Digg.com is from HuffingtonPost.com?? It's sickening.
      • SpikeLee, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2I'm not supporting bias in news. But I want people to be aware of bias and learn how to handle it. I'm a liberal and I don't subscribe to this whole liberal media *****.
    • pidgas, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2What?! Obama is a muslim?!
    • Hangly, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1Everything is laden with opinion. I'd rather get my news from a source that's at least honest about having one.

      AND I require a comments section so alert readers can point out errors and flaws.

      Having "many eyes" checking for flaws is good for software, and it's good for information too.
      • SpikeLee, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Why is it better that they admit? Like you said, everything is laden with opinion. And the sources that admit a bias, tend to go all the way and present extremely biased information.
        • Hangly, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1Because an open bias fools no one.

          If everything has a bias, it's better that that bias is out in the open. If an outlet pretends to be impartial it's more difficult to figure out what might be exaggerated and what might have been omitted.
    • sanultimus, on 07/19/2008, -0/+0I agree. At least the internet has given people the medium to get perspective from different angles. Also any one can pitch in and provide his/her views. There is also www.ameritocracy.com/ where you can vote on different perspectives.

  • sodade, on 05/28/2008, -2/+15"The Death of News Credibility" - It was dead long before now...
  • OriginalLucid1, on 05/28/2008, -2/+8I don't think the news was any more credible before the internet. Dan Rather and his ilk have been making up ***** for years. They can't do it now, because of the internet.
  • krnldmp, on 05/28/2008, -3/+3Everybody gets their facts online. Old media has no choice but to go tabloid/soap opera/strictly commercial. They gotta make a "show" out of it because there's no money in facts. The sad part is grandma and pa in the hills don't know it ain't news.
  • XenoSNK, on 05/28/2008, -3/+1I don't know, this article doesn't mean that the media has lost credibility. Sure, they'll try to bait you into their news article, but is that so wrong? It's not like they don't give the actual information in the end, keeping you intent with that lie.

    I mean, if OP is making a fuss over it, didn't their plan work?
  • valour, on 05/28/2008, -2/+15As a former journalist, I have this to say: Real news doesn't sell. The stories that take weeks or months to research or investigate have just as much of a chance of success as the ones that take fifteen minutes to write and might not be true. So why spend all that time when you can get a quick story out the door that gets just as much traffic and ultimately ad money?

    The solution is to write a quick and probably untrue story, then to update it three to five times over the course of the story's evolution. How many times on Google News do you see "UPDATE 3: Stupid Headline Here" or a pile of addendum UPDATE headings at the end of an article?

    Lastly, content is no longer king. Or at least, the quality of content is no longer important to anyone. Quick and crappy stories that say either what people absolutely do or do not want to hear are what sells these days. See the front page for details.
    • andy314159pi, on 05/28/2008, -2/+4That is just a common excuse that journalists give because they are failing at their jobs. They can't find and report the meaningful news because that is a very difficult task. The actual news occurs in hidden places and in meetings for which you'll never be offered an invitation. Real journalists (not many left) are sneaky and will employ whatever lawful means they need to in order to figure out what is going on. But modern journalists think that the news was written in a press release. Saying that the audience doesn't want the truth is unmitigated bull.
      • valour, on 05/28/2008, -2/+1Pardon me, but you don't know what the ***** you're talking about.
    • brad3378, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2SOOOOO TRUE!!

      Tabloid stories on digg like the recent one about a woman on Fox news joking about wanting Obama to be assassinated get 6000+ diggs.

      Meanwhile, stories with real content like this one about Obama's official platform only get 262 diggs after 110 days:
      http://digg.com/political_opinion/Obama_s_Blueprin ...

      Seriously, are we all turning into sheep?
      It is no wonder Edward Bernays was able to figure us out and manipulate us so easily.
  • wannapiece, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3makes me question so many articles that I come across.
  • mike17032, on 05/28/2008, -7/+10Yes, I get all my news from ***** blogs....

    Sorry kids, but the major networks (both ours and over seas) are still the most credible source of news. Teenagers on digg can rant and rave about "teh dethz of old media" all they want, but its those same people that are running the legit news sites too. Now go back to reading huffingtonpost, rawstory, and thinkprogress like they are news sites (they arnt).
    • dildoolielly, on 05/28/2008, -6/+7Liberals dominate the media....this has been announced by Rush Limbaugh. And Thomas Sowell. And Ann Coulter. And Rich Lowry. Bill O'Reilly. And Robert Novak. And George Will.

      And John Gibson. And Michelle Malkin. And David Brooks. And Tony Snow. And Tony Blankely. And Fred Barnes. And Britt Hume. And Larry Kudlow. And Sean Hannity. And David Horowitz. And William Kristol. And Hugh Hewitt. And William Buckley.

      And Oliver North. And Joe Scarborough. And Pat Buchanan. And John McLaughlin. And Cal Thomas. And Joe Klein. And James Kilpatrick. And Tucker Carlson. And Deroy Murdock. And Michael Savage. And Charles Krauthammer. And Stephen Moore. And Alan Keyes.

      And Gary Bauer. And Mort Kondracke. And Andrew Sullivan. And Nicholas von Hoffman. And Neil Cavuto. And Matt Drudge. And Mike Rosen. And Dave Kopel. And John Caldara. And Deborah Howell. And Richard Morin. And John Harris. And Gordon Liddy. And laura Ingraham.
      And Larry Elder. And Tammy Bruce. And Neal Boortz. And FOX DJ ManPal. And Rusty Humphrey. And Laura Schlessinger.

      So what if the Administration had to pay Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher to run their script.

      TRUTH IS that "Neo-Con Supporters" display their SINCERE HATRED for "Liberty", "Rights". and YES... "Freedom of Speech" A-L-L T-H-E T-I-M-E. (Guess they have a really ruff time seeing ANY "Cause & Effect" logic. After all... They continue to vote these same criminals into office year-after-year and can't understand WHY things have NOSE-DIVED for America recently
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/28/2008, -2/+2Amazing that the super majority of right wing reporters and pundits in the media are picked on so much by a tiny nonexistent liberal group somewhere that evidently hates America. Although none of them have been seen since the 1940's.
      • pidgas, on 05/28/2008, -1/+3You just done a very fine job of listing all the conservative-leaning opinion writers and talk-show radio hosts you could find. You get a star. You'll find a much longer list of left-leaning columnists - just try Google...why don't you start with all the ones that write for the NY Times except William Kristol, David Brooks.

        No intelligent person is upset that the NY Times editorial page is biased. They aren't surprised when the WSJ editorial page comes out against taxes.

        But plenty of people are bothered by biased NEWS coverage. Newsweek ran a NEWS article about Obama's campaign last week, and here's what they wrote:

        "If the candidate seemed weary and peevish or a little slow to respond at times, he never lost his cool. But the real test is yet to come. The Republican Party has been successfully scaring voters since 1968, when Richard Nixon built a Silent Majority out of lower- and middle-class folks frightened or disturbed by hippies and student radicals and blacks rioting in the inner cities."

        Yes yes. There's no liberal bias in the news. Nothing to see here.
        • dildoolielly, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1LIBERAL MEDIA MY ASS!
          The major media are now in the hands of only SIX corporations.

          And those corporations are OVERWHELMINGLY GOP supporters.

          Please....learn about the media and corporate consolidation before you gas on about the 'liberal media.'

          Ain't no such thing.
      • mike17032, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1If you dont know that media in general tends to have a liberal bias, then you are to ***** stupid to take part in the topic anyway.
        • dildoolielly, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Another dumbass uses the term "liberal media" because the media does not meet his agenda.

          How refreshing!

          Make sure your family eats their unwashed spinach. While your at it cut the seat belts out of your cars, remove all smoke detectors from your trailer, put your infant children to sleep face down, stop washing your hands, use only lead based paint that chips, smoke in bed and near your children, never have safe sex, encourage your children to talk to strangers! We’ll all sleep better knowing your offspring have a lesser chance of living to adulthood!
    • wrenchone, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2If it's on the Internet, it must be true.
  • pidgas, on 05/28/2008, -2/+7The object drawing the blogger's ire is a supposedly "misleading" headline on CNN.com. He says they deliberately titled the article, "6 year-olds forced into sex for food, group finds" inaccurately. He says the article was about a 15 year-old. He accuses CNN of sensationalism and pulling a cynical audience-grabbing "bait-and-switch." Although he's probably right that the standards of professionalism are deteriorating, he's embarrassingly wrong in this instance.

    This article is about the report from the Save the Children UK group entitled, "No One To Turn To." As the CNN article says before any 15 year-olds are mentioned, "Children as young as 6 have been forced to have sex with aid workers and peacekeepers in return for food and money, Save the Children UK said in a report released Tuesday." So, indeed, the headline is accurate.

    It's a nice reminder that although the MSM appears to be in a race to the bottom, bloggers aren't necessarily holding up a higher standard for accuracy.

    • jaxomlotus, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2pidgas, merely mentioning a 6-year-old as a footnote in the story (no matter how high up it appears) doesn't make it the subject of the story. There is literally nothing more mentioned about the 6-year-old in this story at all. It does not warrant a title. In fact, it barely warrants being included in the story, except to "justify" being the title of the story. Worse: The description right beneath the title is deliberately misleading. In the article story it is clearly referring to the 15-year-old girl. Yet in the description that appears in conjunction with the title it reads as if it's referring to the 6-year-old.
  • dildoolielly, on 05/28/2008, -4/+7No one with any semblance of intelligence trusts the media anymore. Journalistic integrity has been completely perverted by the drive for ratings and advertising income. If you want to hold a job in news television these days, you must compromise your ethics.

    Writers and "news" anchors had better be gorgeous and wealthy and ready to crank out crapola worthless trash for corporate propaganda

    If you believe the sh*t you see on Ameikan TV is the "news", history will prove you are the dumbest waste of sperm and egg to walk the planet
  • 808ethan, on 05/28/2008, -3/+2If we actually had some control over our 'representative (thanks Ill choose for you bitch)' government, EVERYONE would care about Darfur. But we all know that reading about it won't help those people but finding pictures of Angelina Jolie is guaranteed to produce a result.
    • pidgas, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Maybe if you had control over our government our government would care about Darfur. I bet everyone else would care about the same amount.
  • Weedduder, on 05/28/2008, -2/+2We knows this girl on the south side that does anything for weed. Even the teachers at the high did alittle dealing with her. but she was caught by the cops on the parking lot of smiths doing some of her begging with guys who bring in the shopping carts. but the headline in the paper read she was trying to rob cars and *****. Lies. We knows one of the dudes that gave her a joint for head. She wasn't interested in cars. LOL.
  • cmost, on 05/28/2008, -0/+6This article seems to be a little late...the credibility of "the news" (i.e., mainstream media outlets such as local newspapers, network television stations and the like) died years ago!! Anything that's reported these days by such outlets has spin galore; based on the political or other views of a few elite who own the vast majority of these outlets. Do your research and follow the money. You'll see.
  • rowlodge, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3the news media teaches their reporters to put as much emotional attachment into their stories as they can, it's just like they almost can't contain their emotions and are ready to explode with their own biased idea of anything they report.
    • badqat, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3News (separate from opinion, which has its own place) should be, to quote Jack Webb, "just the facts, ma'am."
  • stonewaljacksn, on 05/28/2008, -3/+7news credibility ended with the huffington post
    • UnbiasedDigger, on 05/28/2008, -1/+5which is probably the most cited website on digg.com
    • andy314159pi, on 05/28/2008, -4/+4The huffington post is entirely editorial. Editorials are opinions and news is on questions of fact.
      News credibility ended when *every* newspaper in America bought into the WMD lie.
  • Fl4sh, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3In my opinion, the news never had any credibility.
  • rda1441, on 05/28/2008, -5/+1Tv and news papers are for old people. The internet is the thing of today and tomorrow.....

    Don't like it...get on the ice flow and wait to freeze.
    • UnbiasedDigger, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2I think that is a very immature and ignorant comment. TV and Newspapers are held to higher and more scrutiny than rogue internet sites. Also, people can tell the difference between a NYTimes newspaper vs. a National Enquirer magazine. It's harder for people to tell a difference between a CNN.com website vs. a HuffingtonPost/DailyKos.com website.
      • rda1441, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Yeah, tv and newspapers are held to a higher standard.... They are a joke.
  • dafragsta, on 05/28/2008, -1/+3Am I the first to notice that it seems oddly out of place to see a journalism commentary on Aviary? I wonder if Adobe's has anything to say on the state of journalism today. ;)
    • jaxomlotus, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Perfect. Aviary marches to its own beat. Giving its employees a place to use its goodwill / influence to help change the world - no matter what the topic - is exactly who we want to be.

      • dafragsta, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2I'm all for free expression, especially for a non-partisan issue like this, but it IS very unorthodox.
  • fuZ1on666, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4The News on Television isn't even news half the time? Why do all the networks cover American Idol? How is that news? Where's the news that might actually be of use to know?
  • buckrogers1965, on 05/28/2008, -1/+5The news has been total BS my whole life. They lie about everything, and if they are caught they just say, "Get over it. Move on. It's over." As far as I can tell the media has been completely right wing my whole life, but people think it has a liberal bias, which is laughable.

    The only news I watch now is Democracy now and what I look up for myself on the internet. I fact check everything I read or hear before I believe it.

    It is amazing what you can find out yourself if you try, look at opinions on every side of an issue, and then think about it and come up with your own conclusions as to what happened.
    • andy314159pi, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Right, the whole "liberal bias" thing was malarky from the beginning.
  • flipcritic, on 05/28/2008, -0/+6Really, it's the same reason why the quality of movies produced by the film industry is also suffering. News, like movies, is now under the direction of corporations, whose sole function is for profit. Sure the public and watchdog organizations can still monitor its quality, but it will still be driven by who owns it.
    • nixfu, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3Agreed, news organizations used to be run by individuals and families who took themselves seriously.

      Now its all just 3-4 different corporations who all run the same poorly written news read to you by retards with straight hair.

      Not to mention that newspapers are full of content that most people have read about 2 weeks ago on the internet, but re-written and dumbed down for 5 year old level of reading ability.

  • hbk25jm, on 05/28/2008, -2/+0Jim Sturgess would make an awesome peter parker imo.
  • mrogi, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2"Show me somebody who thinks the Internet destroyed journalistic integrity; and I'll show you somebody who was too young to read the yellow press in my newspapers" William Randolph Hearst
  • mikeazorin, on 05/28/2008, -2/+3There's something ironic about this news.
  • ElBeh, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1An odd story from a.viary.
    • jaxomlotus, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Aviary's idea blog (different than the product blog) has nothing to do with Aviary - it's just a place to promote general ideas that are on the employees minds.
  • warhol15, on 05/28/2008, -2/+2Who might be the next Spiderman?
  • Lazydriver, on 05/28/2008, -2/+3Mainstream Media, guaranteed to be filled with lies for over the 100 years.

    Come on, who besides me knows about W.R. Hearst? Fox News is just continuing his legacy of libel!
  • dildoolielly, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4No one with any semblance of intelligence trusts the media anymore. Journalistic integrity has been completely perverted by the drive for ratings and advertising income. If you want to hold a job in news television these days, you must compromise your ethics.

    Writers and "news" anchors had better be gorgeous and wealthy and ready to crank out crapola worthless trash for corporate propaganda

    If you believe the sh*t you see on Ameikan TV is the "news", history will prove you are the dumbest waste of sperm and egg to walk the planet
  • CoMpUtErITGuY, on 05/28/2008, -3/+1Is this a story about Digg?
    • funkymoose, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1I had the same thoughts ;p

      People here have been dupped by fake/heavily bias storied again and again but they hate to admit it, and that sir is why people are digging you down.
  • pidgas, on 05/28/2008, -2/+1It's too bad the dude who wrote the original story can't read.
    • jaxomlotus, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1pidgas, merely mentioning a 6-year-old as a footnote in the story (no matter how high up it appears) doesn't make it the subject of the story. There is literally nothing more mentioned about the 6-year-old in this story at all. It does not warrant a title. In fact, it barely warrants being included in the story, except to "justify" being the title of the story.

      Worse: The description right beneath the title is deliberately misleading. In the article story it is clearly referring to the 15-year-old girl. Yet in the description that appears in conjunction with the title it reads as if it's referring to the 6-year-old.
  • VVCephei, on 05/28/2008, -1/+0There was a time, a time before cable. When the local anchorman reigned supreme. When people believed everything they heard on TV. This was an age when only men were allowed to read the news. And in San Diego, one anchorman was more man then the rest. His name was Ron Burgundy. He was like a god walking amongst mere mortals. He had a voice that could make a wolverine purr and suits so fine they made Sinatra look like a hobo. In other words, Ron Burgundy was the balls.
  • jerrycurley, on 05/28/2008, -1/+0The internet is not replacing tradtional news any time spoon. All you have to do to understand that is to read Digg for more than an hour.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 83 of 83 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.