Digg.com...Duh, Dude! Overzealous scoopers vie for big time! Jostling newsies (?) scratch for elbow room without much to offer!

In a post last week I reported on "The Saint" - a blogger who twisted and distorted facts in a post about a Katie Couric interview with Sarah Palin - which was summarily submitted to "Digg" for instant glory, I guess.

A Los Angeles Times writer sniffed around a bit - and didn't think that the wild expose passed the smell test - so he engaged in a little sleuthing of his own to dredge up the truth.

Ah, the Saint fessed up.

Bald-faced lies!

In view of the fact he was using an online moniker (and his true identity was not known) what did the phantom post-it bandit have to lose?

Meanwhile, his unfounded allegations shook up a few reputations, and along the way caused many media types who prowl a myriad of scintillating sites for easy prey, to quote the insightful writer at the Times.

"Be careful what you swallow on the Internet."

The Times writer also made a passing remark that a post submitted to digg.com - if made popular by digg members - could end up rustling a few hundred-thousand new readers to blog enthusiasts' sites.

So, I decided to investigate "digg", to figure out what the fuss was all about.

I signed up, submitted a story or two, and waited for the sharks to bite.

Right off-the-bat, a post about Sarah Palin started to gain momentum - but as news flashes spun the story off into a new direction - the hits dropped off.

Within a day the item was old news, so it was understandable.

That's an integral part of the problem with digg.com.

Unless a news feature is posted right away for publication - it may become untimely - at the blink of an eye.

So, for starters, that is a big flaw in the digg scheme of things.

After a post is submitted (and before it sees the light of day) digg staff wait for members to vote on whether they "dugg" an article - to likewise determine - if the piece will nab a hot spot on the main digg site.

By that time - the story may have become so moldy, old and gray, or just plain long in the tooth - that not even the most nostalgic gossip monger would be likely to save the little ditty for his scrapbook.

Gosh, what a waste of energy for a writer!

Notwithstanding - I noticed that digg writers seemed to be tethering at the bit to snatch up every little news tid-bit that wormed its way off the wire - for packaging in a post to be zipped off to digg.

So many writers were jumping on the same story on the occasion that I cruised the site - it made me wonder - isn't there enough original material out there to satisfy the feeding frenzy?

Everyone appeared to be writing about the Palin subpoenas, the guy who got shot wearing an Obama T-shirt, McCain's attack on opponents, and blah blah blah.

The reports that were posted were run-of-the-mill, too.

I rarely came across any originality, outstanding news reporting, or stellar award-winning literary style.

I sh** you not.

Part of the problem with digg is that the writers are all so busy vying for hits and popularity, that they've overlooked the obvious.

It's important to focus on the craft of writing, the turn of a phrase, a structure that makes sense in the new-age realm of "anything goes" journalism in the fast-paced electronic media age.

Also, because the so-called "writers" are competing with each other, I noticed a bit of professional jealousy.

A story or two that deserved mention or credit was ignored by digg members.

Did the talented young upstart show them up for what they were?

Talentless hacks?

While I do believe that competition is healthy - at digg.com the whole process of writing and submitting and fielding responses - may be a waste of time for serious writers seeking to strike out on their own and attain credibility in the legitimate world of news reporting.

Especially when you consider that a man is often judged by the company he keeps.

At digg, stories were not always factually correct, often amounted to more opinion than news, and - for the most part - were awkward and amateurish in style.

As to graphics and supporting images to bolster the quality of the posts - in most cases - there usually weren't any to speak of to stir up the sensibilities.

The blah leading the bland!

Digg may be dugg by many, but didn't make it into the dug out, with moi.

Didn't digg dugging at all, dude!

Los Angeles Times...quote of the day! Blogger screws up...

A controversy arose when a writer from a blog site (Blue Tidal Wave) submitted a story for consideration on Digg - which alleged that footage from a Katie Couric interview - was being "held back" to gain some advantage in the leverage game.

The writer, going by the moniker - The Saint - first lifted a quote from media critic Howard Kurtz, to jump-start his report.

"The worst may be yet to come for Palin. Sources say CBS has two more responses on tape that will likely prove embarrassing."

At this juncture, the Saint - less than Saintly judging by his scurrilous actions - proceeded to twist and distort the information to suit his own personal agenda.

According to the Times writer, David Sarno, the Saint took Kurtz's revelation and transformed it into an accusation of censorship replete with his own sounding board.

In short, here's what he posted.

"CBS evening news insiders say the censoring of the Palin interview was orchestrated by CBS news heads and Couric in an effort to show the McCain (!) campaign that they should choose the struggling nightly news program for their exclusive (!) interviews."

Well, for starters, there were enough red herrings in that little ditty to entice any super sleuth!


Sensing that Tidal Wave's tale of intrigue did not pass the smell test, either, the reporter at the daily followed up with a question or two of his own.

Ha! The Saint confessed.


The alleged CBS source was not that, at all.

The "insiders" fibber-boy was referring to - did not have any clout - and weren't heavyweights on the inside at CBS with privileged information, either.

"It was just a friend."

In addition, he admitted shame-faced the two only spoke "off-hand".

The icing on the cake?

"There never was any permission to cite a source."

When it comes right down to it, the Saint did not know if additional unused footage would be used at all, or if ever.

So, he put on his thinking cap, and dredged up the titillating accusation that the CBS camp was holding back footage with future strategies in mind.

It has since been determined that footage does exist; however, the wild scenario fathomed up by the Saint was nothing but a load of "hooey".

The truth of the matter is - Couric shot material separately for a "Questions" segment - which included a matching interview with Senator Joe Biden.

After chastising various individuals - and raising the issue of ethics in reporting - David Sarno uttered up what is undoubtedly the quote of the day.

"If there's one thing you learn from reporting on the Web, it's to be careful what you swallow."