Kevin Rose. The man who holds the balance of power between McCain and Obama
It's time independents had one place to go to read intelligent election coverage. Digg should be the place.
How many of us are really comfortable crossing over to the other side?
You know, those people who do and believe things that you really don't like.
For some, that might be David Duke. For others, Doris Duke. And, for me, the Duke of Edinburgh.
Nowhere is this reluctance greater than in politics.
The media, each as objective as a Vegas casino owner, have abdicated their objectivity throne and decided to cater to their own skewed crowd.
Those barely left of center wander off to the New York Times, the Huffington Post and the Bill Maher Bible Study Group.
Those on the other side to Fox News, the Drudge Report and the Michael Richards stand-up show.
This means that independents, or anyone even vaguely still in control of their own faculties, have to do a lot of work to separate the wheat from the gaffe.
And this is where Kevin Rose and his Oligarchy of Objectivity at Digg might just step in.
While Mr. Murdoch at Fox is known as the Dirty Digger, perhaps Mr. Rose might don the mantle of the Clean Digger. (Quick, before he sells to MySpace)
Here's how it might work.
Digg could create an Election Special Section on its site.
In order for an article to make it into this de-cessed pool, it would have to have been Dug by at least one Republican and one Democrat.
Any article that achieved this hallowed status would be deemed to have a Double Digg.
Independents could then go to the Double Diggs in order to make their trawl for intelligent information a little easier than being a skipper on the Deadliest Catch.
You're going to ask how Digg will know that the Double Diggers are, indeed, members of the respective (if not always respected) parties.
Well, they could either have a direct connection to voter registration all around the country. (They're techies. They can hack into anything.)
Or there could be a simple test question.
To ascertain whether someone is a Republican, you might ask them: DO THE WORDS 'LIBERAL' AND 'COMMUNIST' MEAN THE SAME THING?
Or, if we're going for a less cerebral demographic: WHICH BAND DID MARTIN LUTHER KING PLAY WITH?
To ascertain whether someone is a Democrat, the question might be: HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN A SINGLE THING YOU BELIEVE IN USING LESS THAN FIVE THOUSAND WORDS?
Or, perhaps, HAVE YOU EVER HAD SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH A WHOLE COMMITTEE?
Once an article has entered the Double Digg area, entry should only be permitted to undecideds.
Of course, those undecideds could then keep on Digging, until there is a hierarchy of the most useful information available.
Which would surely be if not a nirvana of journalistic objectivity, then at least a near-vana.
This election is too important to leave to the entrenched biases of media types.
The truly informative articles (and they surely exist on both sides) must be treated like porcelain and preserved in a vault for all well-meaning people to peruse with haste and without pressure.
The Double Digg.
A swing voter just can't swing without it.