I think the concept of Digg is a good one. It makes news more interactive and it allows the popularity of a story to remain in the hands of the public. If a story is placed on the front of a newspaper, that is what people see and that is what they talk about (typically). With Digg, what shows up first is up to the people; it is almost empowering. It allows for smaller stories with significantly less coverage, although of no less importance, to be featured. The public has a chance to get the truth when certain media outlets may keep it from them. The news today has changed, there’s no doubt about it. We focus on celebrities like Charlie Sheen and want to know more, more, more. We then focus less on the small town news company who is struggling to survive while writing about the importance of events similar to what occurred in Wisconsin. Digg gives the small paper's story the potential to be read by a large amount of people. With Digg the uncovered stories can get out. Then people can talk about them, commenting back and forth and really generate buzz about the topic. Interactivity is one of the beauties of new new media, but Digg is in a sense giving people the power to choose what news they see. Yes there is shouting and bury brigades, but if the topic is a worthy one, why not get a group to "shout" and get it to the front of the site?