Create a custom theme
0
It's often been said that community-driven news sites, such as Digg, are going to be the next potential threat to the traditional editor-led online news sources. Personally, I can't see that happening with anything like the present formula, and here's why.
A good editor-driven news source should aim to pick stories based on their value and interest, and only after setting their personal interests and prejudices aside. Ideally, that would result in an even spread of stories covering various viewpoints.
That's is the reason why Digg can't threaten them. Because everyone has a say on Digg, you can't rely on the 'editors' (the users) to put their bias aside and digg a story on its merit rather than whether it agrees with their opinion or not. I'm not preaching here - I do it too. This means that alternative opinions, minority opinions or unpopular opinions rarely get a showing; they just get ignored or dugg down. So only the popular opinions make it to mass-visibility on the homepage, and only one side of the story is ever presented. Because this one side is the only side many people will be exposed to, they may too begin agreeing with it or accepting it as truth because they don't know any different. And so the one-sided-juggernaut continues.
The sign of a good news outlet is presenting the facts and allowing each person to make up their own mind. Community driven sites just cannot achieve that because they're essentially one opinion made up of thousands of people (unless, of course, opinions on a story really are split 50/50).
The comments system on Digg suffers from the same problems. I was involved in a mild debate in the comments to a story yesterday with someone who didn't share the popular opinion. He was angry that he couldn't have his say on Digg because he'd be modded down, hidden then ignored. I disagreed with his opinion on the topic, but completely agreed with why he was angry. On the whole, comments on Digg are modded up or down based soley on whether someone agrees or disagrees with your opinion. So again, alternative, unpopular or minority opinions get overlooked. That's not how it should be. Comments should be modded up if they are well written, valuable, informative or interesting - even if you disagree with the opinion being shared. They should be modded down if they're poor or don't contribute anything - even if you agree with the opinion.
The comparison may be a little bit David/Goliath, Apples/Oranges, but let's compare Digg to the BBC News website. The BBC is generally considered to be one of the most impartial news outlets available. Editors put their opinions aside, and stories are often taken from different viewpoints, or from no viewpoint at all. After reading, the user makes up their own mind - this is how news should be. Give me the facts and I'll decide what I think about them. The BBC site also has 'Have your say', which is similar to Digg comments in that readers can 'recommend' other comments (in most cases, the comments themselves are first moderated before being shown, but there's always a representative sample of opinions shared). Even when someone has an unpopular opinion, it's displayed and doesn't just disappear because people disagree. Again, someone reading is now being exposed to other opinions, and I believe that is good for everyone involved.
Of course, convincing thousands of users to suddenly drop their bias when digging articles and comments is going to be virtually impossible, but if it could be done then I believe Digg would be all the better for it.
Digg is a brilliant concept and really does provide a good service for finding some interesting stories, but I really think those that claim the concept is a threat to traditional publishing are wrong. The two can, however, sit happily beside each other - just don't assume you're getting the full story from a community-driven news site.
(You can Digg this if you want - is that paradoxical?)
A good editor-driven news source should aim to pick stories based on their value and interest, and only after setting their personal interests and prejudices aside. Ideally, that would result in an even spread of stories covering various viewpoints.
That's is the reason why Digg can't threaten them. Because everyone has a say on Digg, you can't rely on the 'editors' (the users) to put their bias aside and digg a story on its merit rather than whether it agrees with their opinion or not. I'm not preaching here - I do it too. This means that alternative opinions, minority opinions or unpopular opinions rarely get a showing; they just get ignored or dugg down. So only the popular opinions make it to mass-visibility on the homepage, and only one side of the story is ever presented. Because this one side is the only side many people will be exposed to, they may too begin agreeing with it or accepting it as truth because they don't know any different. And so the one-sided-juggernaut continues.
The sign of a good news outlet is presenting the facts and allowing each person to make up their own mind. Community driven sites just cannot achieve that because they're essentially one opinion made up of thousands of people (unless, of course, opinions on a story really are split 50/50).
The comments system on Digg suffers from the same problems. I was involved in a mild debate in the comments to a story yesterday with someone who didn't share the popular opinion. He was angry that he couldn't have his say on Digg because he'd be modded down, hidden then ignored. I disagreed with his opinion on the topic, but completely agreed with why he was angry. On the whole, comments on Digg are modded up or down based soley on whether someone agrees or disagrees with your opinion. So again, alternative, unpopular or minority opinions get overlooked. That's not how it should be. Comments should be modded up if they are well written, valuable, informative or interesting - even if you disagree with the opinion being shared. They should be modded down if they're poor or don't contribute anything - even if you agree with the opinion.
The comparison may be a little bit David/Goliath, Apples/Oranges, but let's compare Digg to the BBC News website. The BBC is generally considered to be one of the most impartial news outlets available. Editors put their opinions aside, and stories are often taken from different viewpoints, or from no viewpoint at all. After reading, the user makes up their own mind - this is how news should be. Give me the facts and I'll decide what I think about them. The BBC site also has 'Have your say', which is similar to Digg comments in that readers can 'recommend' other comments (in most cases, the comments themselves are first moderated before being shown, but there's always a representative sample of opinions shared). Even when someone has an unpopular opinion, it's displayed and doesn't just disappear because people disagree. Again, someone reading is now being exposed to other opinions, and I believe that is good for everyone involved.
Of course, convincing thousands of users to suddenly drop their bias when digging articles and comments is going to be virtually impossible, but if it could be done then I believe Digg would be all the better for it.
Digg is a brilliant concept and really does provide a good service for finding some interesting stories, but I really think those that claim the concept is a threat to traditional publishing are wrong. The two can, however, sit happily beside each other - just don't assume you're getting the full story from a community-driven news site.
(You can Digg this if you want - is that paradoxical?)
