I don't understand why people don't want information that is not full of crap. Granted, this problem outlined below lies in the story submission stage where users conveniently forget to convey what an article actually says to get maximum diggs. Truthfully, I'm really fed up with it and you should be too.
Here are a couple good examples of what I mean:
1. "Religious right leaders knew #1 evangelical, Ted Haggard, was gay"
Problem: No one reads past the headline. Many people are so quick to comment about how terrible Christian's are, they fail to read the story at all. I did read the story and the links it quoted, but somehow I only see that Haggard's being gay was speculated. Far from proof if you ask me.
2. "**Republican Fires Employee For Confirming that He Violated Ethics Rules"
Problem: Again, the sheep, I mean readers don't read the article. The comments section was filled up with comments saying that Republicans are *all* corrupt. Anyways, I decided to read the article and found that at no point did the article state that anyone was fired.
Please don't take either of these example and say that I condone the actions at the heart of the news stories. I don't. Hypocrisy and unethical behavior are not good. I simply want people to be a little less stupid. Is that too much to ask?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Many people are checking the digg from work, and therefore have little time to read the article, especially if it is a long one. Those ones just post immediately what they think about the topic of the title, but not the topic of the article.Ok, I hope i read and understood correctly what you wrote. I am at work...lol
Congrat for your blog, by the way. Really interesting.
I agree that many people do check articles from work. I guess I just get frustrated when people spew hot air without being fully informed.
Thanks for the complement :)
Post a Comment