The Politics Of Internet

The Web creates a democratizing force that stands in opposition to the massive power of today's global corporations to centralize and accumulate wealth and power -- and quite possibly the equal of that force. Perhaps its nemesis.

To an extent, the Web levels the playing field. At the point in history when corporate power and monopoly is concentrating to a greater degree than ever before, the Internet makes it possible for people with limited capital to play with big guys. To some degree, it reduces the advantage given by money in almost every endeavor field of activity.

A Web site can be maintained for a modest amount of money, which allows a single entrepreneur the opportunity to stand on an equal footing in some ways to CBS or ABC.

Since the major media have more or less abdicated the responsibility of talking about many of the most pressing issues of the time, the job has fallen to a vital network of independent media that is driven more by politics than selling products. This is not a small distinction.

Of course a small enterprise doesn't have the means of promoting itself and making its message heard as the major corporations, but smallness has advantages as well. A major corporation is unshakably tied to the profit-seeking imperative. A corporation exists only to maximize shareholder wealth. It cannot act in any way that runs counter to that purpose. That severely restricts what it can say.

A medium of communication that is primarily motivated by profit cannot risk alienating its advertisers, who are the source of much more of its income than its readers. So while the small enterprise may not be much of a threat to the major media in commercial terms, in terms of ideas and information, in terms of social history, it has a distinct advantage.

Though there are exceptions, an establishment publication or broadcast medium today cannot speak in plain terms, for example, about the connection between the slaughter of innocents in the Palestinian territories by Israel and the weapons that are provided for the purpose by U.S. taxpayers. As a commercial enterprise it is too tightly bound up within the system itself. A few advertisers pulling their ad schedules can put the paper in trouble. The entity seeks primarily to succeed as a business, but fails as a medium of communication that could enable its public to make an informed decision about financing mass murder.

When the slaughter is mentioned on the news it must be slurred around, obfuscated, hidden behind technical terms and cliches that turn it into mush, that filter out the human suffering that is underlying the reality the words represent.

The major media have long since failed as the constitutionally designated fourth estate, which is essential to the healthy functioning of democratic government. They are increasingly failing to address themselves to the vital interests of their readers. They continue to be successful as commercial enterprises, dispensers of entertainment, distraction, and as means for selling products.

They are now in danger of losing their audiences in an erosion as rapid as the Bush regime's rollback of the civil rights of Americans.

It is yet to be seen how rigid these media systems are, and how well they will adapt to the lightning pace of change of the 21st Century. The present situation is in some ways historically unprecedented. Many have speculated that the Web will have more impact on culture than the printing press. Some have gone much farther and said the Web will have a greater impact on human society than anything since the invention of agriculture.

[Winetalk.com]

hmmm...absolutelly correct begining and absolutelly wrong conclusions

[Mike AI]

Hmmm it looks like someone is stealing college term papers again!

[PornoDoggy]

College? Maybe ... I'm thinking High School.

poopie ..... poopie ...... poopie


cut and paste bullshit ......

Today's corporate media are like the clerks of the 12th Century court whose purpose was to bolster and protect the dogma of the church and the divine right of kings. They cannot allow a free flow of new ideas into their systems because the ideas would be destructive to the systems themselves.

Speaking of entrenchment in tradition, the New York Times - "the paper of record," arguably the most important paper in the world -- adheres so rigidly to tradition that a reporter in that paper cannot refer to a person in a second reference without a title such as Mr, Mrs, Miss or Ms. If the paper refers to Ringo Starr for example, it says "Mr. Starr," even though "Ringo Starr" is a stage name, hardly at home in a formal setting. In a second reference to Sid Vicious, the reporter would presumably be required to say "Mr. Vicious," which is probably as good a reason as any why you don't see much coverage of such people in the New York Times.

As the Paper of Record, the Times is the keeper of history, so every morning it must theoretically proclaim and document the most important events of the previous day, even if its entire audience has heard those events in a hundred TV and radio broadcasts and several editions of tabloids already.

Just as its editorial style encumbers its ability to talk about contemporary events, it is handicapped in its ability to accommodate a broad range of events in the 21st century for which there are no precedents. How does, for example, the Times deal with a stolen presidential election? More or less by denial.

Since the Times and its brethren cannot discuss the stolen election as a stolen election, it must talk about it as though it were legitimate, and then fall into its standard patterns of language to refer to "the president" exactly the same as if he had actually been elected. When its own research shows that the operation was a heist, it must be polite to the extent of entirely avoiding anything that would be embarassing. As events become ever more extreme, it puts the Times at a greater distance from the real world its readers.

In the past, the major media has been very successful in enforcing ideas upon the public. If the polls commissioned by the major TV networks and newspapers tell us that a huge majority "approve" of "the job the president is doing," that judgment the becomes the accepted reality. But it is not at all sure that that the major media will retain its perceived authority as the gap between what they report and what the population can see for itself widens.

Under the Bush administration, the corporate state's drive to seize power and nullify democratic power has been unleashed and gone into runaway. A corresponding reaction is taking place in the population, a change that is not reflected in the major corporate media because the self-consciousness of that social change would be anathema to the corporations that own the media.

That changing awareness, which is little more than a natural reaction to the pressures of the corporate state to marginalize the majority, is finding a channel for expression on the Internet.

As Mussolini said explicitly, fascism IS corporatism. That is the process we are now witnessing: the ever increasing accumulation of wealth by an ever decreasing number of corporate entities; the turning over of the government to these entities; and their use of it as an instrument of war, by which they further enhance their profits and power.

[Edd]

Sombody trolling for a pearl perhaps?

[Vick]

http://www.davidcogswell.com/Essays/Fascis...FreedomNet.html

Source of this nonsense

[Mike AI]

HAHA good catch Vick!!

[Edd]

Ok, Kid... now we discuss "relevancy"... What moved you to post that essay here? do you find it extrodinarily applicable to the adult webmaster circumstance? Or are you just a goof?

[Vick]

Hey Kid - I think you can get a job here
Kid's New Career Starts here

[Edd]

Originally posted by kid@Nov 14 2002, 12:29 PM

Oh, I see... you're a goof....

NEXT!!

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by kid@Nov 14 2002, 10:38 AM
Some have gone much farther and said the Web will have a greater impact on human society than anything since the invention of agriculture.

Certainly important but will the internet have a greater impact than electric power?

Without electric power all of modern civilization would collapse - including the internet.

[wig]

Colin,

You just reminded me of something. If you look back at many (if not all) of the major innovations (gunpowder, electricity, internet, etc.) they all preceded a euphoric rise in equities markets and/or positive social psychology. Of course all these were followed by a bust.

I laugh every time I think about all the talking heads talking about productivity and how the Internet was the beginning of a new era of Prosperity... blah, blah, blah.

Where are they now?

[Almighty Colin]

Wig,

That would seem difficult to measure. I mean - do you start from the actual introduction of the invention or once it reaches a certain critical penetration or once it begins to be traded in markets in some way.

I'd like to know more if you know more because it sounds very interesting.

What equities market eupohoria followed the invention of gunpowder? China about 1000 years ago?