If you are what appears to be Digg’s main demographic, then you are a geek, male (largely redundant considering the first descriptor), politically liberal, atheist (or at least agnostic or non-religious) and apparently you have no qualms about lying.
I saw this headline today on one of the stories:
Fox News: Could Cho have been possessed by the Devil?
We all know that if you fit the demographic above then to you think the real devil is Faux News (that play on words was pretty funny several Y E A R S ago, by the way) but writing a title that implies Fox News espouses that *they* think Cho may have been possessed by the devil is just simply dishonest.
I understand that the editorial board at Digg is the community itself, blah blah blah, but what gets me is that there are all these people who claim to be of some higher plane of thinking and reason and yet still stoop to posting these stories with dishonest titles to somehow demonize every establishment they disagree with. If you were to follow the link and actually read the story, you would realize that Fox News is making no such claim. They are reporting on someone who has made such a claim. If it were editorial, they would probably demonstrate that they think it’s just as ridiculous as you do.
So why stoop to lying? You are misleading your lemming disciples. Just read the comments for the story and you’ll realize that a great many of the people who commented have no clue what the story actually says. Simply because of the way the title was phrased they just assumed that Fox News thinks that Cho may have been possessed by the devil (cause somebody once told them that Faux News is the real Debil). Don’t you have any conscience about misleading the little followers to believe some farce simply because of the way you posted your story, ‘jimripper’? If you are so enlightened and above the fray in ‘thinking progress’, why stoop to such a level? You may hate Fox News (and who doesn’t? it’s *the* most popular American past time second only to hating the President) but how can you act like you are somehow on a higher plane. You are as bad if not a worse liar than the people you’re pointing your finger at.
To the supposed enlightened ones of Digg, here’s a suggestion, you might be able to convince a few people of your ideas, if only you were honest. I know in your world, the one where morality is relative, telling a *little white lie* is allowable and the end justifies the means on a regular basis, but really. Stop claiming you have some sort of moral superiority *because* you are an atheist or un-religious. You are not honest and you make no apologies for it. Where I come from, we call lying and misleading people WRONG–morally and otherwise. Your dishonesty begets contempt.
I’m not blaming Digg for anything here. Self regulating editorial is a very cool idea and I’m all for it. You just have to take the bad with the good I suppose and until people take it upon themselves to report stories honestly, there will remain plenty of bad along with what makes Digg so good.
Methinks you dost protest too much.
The title is not dishonest. At worst it is deceiving. I would attribute to a sloppy headline followed by a propensity to spout off. Certainly attributes that are neither infrequent nor restricted to the Digg community.
Fox is not exactly a beacon of honest reporting itself. I find that many, if not most, Digg comments soon degenerate into predictable, polar discussions, with little willingness from either side to find a common ground.
There is just as much hatred and animosity from the left towards Fox as from Fox to the left. I may be a left-wing, atheist male geek, but I also own a rifle, two shotguns, a pistol, an RV, and hunt and fish. I do not follow the incessant media feeding frenzy around tragedies, as I think it is like going to a car race to see the wrecks.
I feel better now, 8-).