It is simply baseless to make a comparison between New York Times and Digg, as they are on two different poles on the planet. Anyways, be it whatever, just a few days back Michael Arrington of TechCrunch had put his claim that Digg was challenging the New York Times on the terms of page views.
However, he had based his logic on the traffic assumption envisaged by Alexaholic rankings.
Off late Hitwise, the Internet traffic supervisory body also released the statistics comparing traffic of New York Times and Digg. This statistic has painted a gruesome picture for Digg. According to the statistics, New York Times receives 19 times more traffic than Digg!
Following are the graphs of both reports to help you make your own decision.
Graph of Hitwise

Graph of Alexaholic rankings

Read More
NY Times vs. Digg: premature exercise






Comments
Digg is never going to take place of NYTimes or any other newspaper. NYTimes, Guardian or any other newspaper are not fearing digg or digg like clones. The real shot could be from a stong organization which supports Citizen Journalism, or which could catalyze the process of turning audience, readers into reporters.
OhMyNews could be one organization, but it needs to move itself long way before achieving that.
There are good reporters, average ones and some that are immature and/or incompetent. The same goes for citizen journalists. In the end, nobody is going to eat anyone else’s lunch on the basis of being a part of the new media or the old one. That’s not how it works. People want quality information delivered in a timely manner as well as unique perspectives. If you can deliver that as a blogger, you’re good to go. If you can deliver that as an old media personality, even then you’ll find a loyal audience. Quality rules, and nothing else does.
Yeah, but having said that, the one significant advantage of the old media is that they are very often directly in touch with news makers, and as such are more likely to break news, whereas the blogosphere is more about referencing as well as commenting on the news rather than breaking it. On a related note, old media journalists do not have the same degree of freedom as citizen journalists do, insofar as expressing their opinions are concerned.
It is these fundamental differences that in some way point to a symbiotic relationship between the new and the old media, in the long run.
Well Said Saurab.
>>Yeah, but having said that, the one significant advantage of the old media is that they are very often directly in touch with news makers, and as such are more likely to break news, whereas the blogosphere is more about referencing as well as commenting on the news rather than breaking it.
Though I don`t agree fully on this with you. New media is more likely to get in touch with newsmakers, and with coming times the popularity and reach of new media is expanding very rapidly, newsmakers will themselves becomes the reporters and sometimes audience too. The boundary between newsmakers, reporters and readers is getting blurred day by day.
NYTIMES has highly reputed readers and audience. While digg is social media website which very low amount of real audience. and scammers are already there.
SEO Services
Both are might have exact and relevant niche, but medium of services what they provide are differ. NY Times is the king of conventional marketing or news broadcaster while Digg is social media websites which is strictly followed by online users. IMO, i don’t compare these both with each other as they won’t affect their business.
SEO Services Web Designing