Digg elects bogus 'CBS Censorship' post story of the day

The headline of yesterday's #1 Digg story blared, “Katie Couric and CBS News Censor Embarrassing Palin Tape.” The story, from a liberal political blog called “Blue Tidal Wave,” claimed that CBS News was  withholding footage of a gaffe by Gov. Sarah Palin in order to secure future interviews from the McCain campaign.

Digg gets 16,000 story submissions every day, so any story that earns enough votes to hit the top 10 has scored a major coup.  But being elected the day’s top story, as Blue Tidal Wave’s post was, is a little like winning the web news lottery, with a windfall of readers that can number in the hundreds of thousands.

But far from winning the lottery, the readers of “Blue Tidal Wave’s” censorship post got nothing but a heaping plate of horse pucky.

The post, by an anonymous writer called “The Saint,” began by quoting from a story by Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz. Even after a week of widely mocked footage from the Palin-Couric interviews, Kurtz wrote, “the worst may be yet to come for Palin; sources say CBS has two more responses on tape that will likely prove embarrassing.”

The Saint took Kurtz’s revelation and twisted it  into an accusation of censorship, complete with its own journalistic-sounding statement: “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.”

I reached the Saint by e-mail, and he admitted that the “CBS Evening News insiders” he was referring to was  “a friend” at CBS whom he’d spoken to “off hand” and “never had permission to source.” The friend “didn’t know if CBS would air all of the interview,” the Saint wrote, “and I concluded that they might be holding back the footage.”

What The Saint didn’t know—or didn’t bother to find out—is that CBS News had shot the  material in question last Wednesday, Sept. 24 — when Palin was in New York — as part of its separate “Questions” series. That feature, started during the primaries,  has Couric asking multiple candidates identical questions. The “Vice Presidential Questions” segment — which included a matching interview with Sen. Joe Biden — had been scheduled to air this week all along.

In fact, a “Questions” segment in which  Couric asked the candidates about Roe vs.  Wade aired Wednesday night, while “Blue Tidal Wave’s” post claiming CBS was censoring that very footage was still in Digg’s top 10.   (In the clip, Palin was unable to name any U.S. Supreme Court cases she disagreed with – an awkward moment to be sure, but in light of last week’s Couric-Palin footage, nothing to stop the presses for.)

On the Internet, faulty information seems to follow the path of least resistance. It gets passed on by the people who are most eager to believe it, and therefore least likely to find out if it’s actually true. On Digg, a site that tends to elevate left-leaning stories, the “CBS censorship” canard found a willing audience, and so rather than being called out as dubious and slanted, the bogus story shot to the top of the list.   

“The notion that CBS was ‘censoring’ this information is, of course, absurd,” Kurtz wrote to me. “In today’s digital universe, some of the more hyperpartisan or hyperventilating practitioners take a fact, add dashes or supposition or conspiracy theory, and cook up a half-baked stew.”

And if there’s one thing you learn from reporting on the Web, it’s to be careful what you swallow.

Comments

[lauren]

I call BS see this web site http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/190 . It clearly shows the bias that couric demonstrates

[anon]

CBS news lost most of their credibility after 'The Insider' and the antics of Rather.

[Bailout Brigade]

Digg has methods in place to derail incorrect stories. In this case, the buzz generated around Couric's bias towards Palin, coupled with CBS's need to have an exclusive story, made it worthwhile to keep the story moving forward.

McCain/Palin need to explain to the American people why they're supporting the Bailout Bill, and then why McCain is willing to ask President Bush to veto it because of the pork. If you need to find out who is, and who isn't, supporting the bill, just check the list at http://bailoutbrigade.com

[Jon P]

You can't blame digg for this because they have no say as to what goes on that top 10 list or what stories get on the front page. The people who visit digg are the ones who say want news stories are worthy or not.

I do agree that you have to be careful what you swallow when it comes to news, especially online news. It's much easier to throw up a website and say what ever you want then it is to get an article in a newspaper or print your own. I've even noticed some national news sites that throw up an store online that don't have any sources or links as to where they got their information. Assumptions & Truthiness at it's best.

FYI - This story is on the front page of Digg right now!

[Free Xbox 360]

Heh, this just go to show that Digg will "digg" anything that has mass appeal without actually questioning the validity or source of the article.

[Aaron]

Why let this bother you. If you let the homepage / top 10 effect you, well ya got bigger problems. Next complain that a song in the Top 40 is crap.

[Barius]

Digg does not select the stories that make it to the front, the readers do. So, while the CBS article was very popular with readers one day, today I see this very article on that same front page. Effectively, Digg has published a correction for an earlier error (though you, of course, were the author). That's how it works.

Further, when I read newspapers or watch televised news there are often errors and inconsistencies. Corrections are often made days or weeks after the original gaffe. How many readers/watchers even remember the story that contained the gaffe that long after publication?

Thus, because Digg is capable of bringing relevant news to the front quickly and also self-correcting errors quickly, it is clearly more reliable than other forms of media.

Your attempt to rag on Digg has backfired. Try again next time.

[Jim C]

Just because I digg it doesn't mean I believe it.

[cf]

The writer proves that the original blogger is a bad journalist, but then proceeds to attempt to build an additional case to 'prove' that CBS is not hiding anything. None of this evidence, however, proves anything -- which is understandable given how hard it would be to prove the non existence of a segment of recorded video.

In an attempt to show the LAT is better at journalism than Digg, this article merely shows that they are nearly the same: making a case (the existence of or non existence of video footage) using slim and unconvincing evidence.

It would have been sufficient, in this case, to discredit the original story and leave it at that, without adding a dubious argument to prove the nearly unproveable.

Also, it's worth noting that the right-wing blogosphere has for weeks been absolutely livid about their own theory that CBS is hiding *exculpatory* clips of Palin, clips where she allegedly displays competance. It seems likely to that conservatives holding this thoery may be largely driving the popularity of this article on Digg.