kid
11-14-2002, 10:30 AM
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.
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.