It
seems that whenever there's an argument about the reach and influence
of left-wing newspapers or right-wing radio or TV shows, someone
always attempts to marginalize their power by bringing up the
internet, and the multitude of opinions expressed in blogs. And,
while on the surface this 'freedom of the press is alive and well'
defense seems to make sense, further analysis demonstrates that there
is nothing further from the truth.
It is true, that back in the 1990s,
the World-Wide Web (as it was called then) was a new frontier for
ideas, opinions and creative expression. There were no restrictions
or censorship of any kind -- anything seemed possible. And for
awhile, that was exactly the case. Websites were popping up
everywhere with everything from Freedom of Information Act documents
and scientific papers to alternative news reports -- even conspiracy
theories. There was so much to read, see and explore that most of us
couldn't wait to get off work, to get back online.
Enter the 'Dot Com Boom...' Once word
spread around that so many people were spending so much time on their
home computers, the Wall Streeters, Madison Avenuers and K-Streeters
began investing heavily in anything to do with the internet. This
short-lived free-for-all of venture capital made millions of
millionaires until the rug was pulled out by the bankers, media and
politicians. Yes, you heard that right.
Similar to the recent 'Housing
Bubble,' the established institutions took advantage of a
social-evolutionary phenomenon and manipulated it for (their) gain
and control. In the case of the Banking Crisis, it was to transfer
wealth from the middle and upper-class to the extremely wealthy, or
'ruling class.' In the case of the Dot Com Bust, it was to seize
control of the internet (and its technology) to prevent the free-flow
of ideas -- mainly dissent -- from reaching the majority of
voters.
Now, I realize that this seems
outrageous to most people, and I'm sure I lost a few readers after
the previous paragraph; but for those still scrolling along, here's
why this story hasn't been (and won't) be told in the mainstream
media.
This isn't the first time that the
media and two-party political system was threatened by new technology
and alternative voices. It happened back in the early 1980s when
cable television began cropping up all over the country. Once cable
viewership started taking eyeballs away from the major networks, the
'powers that be' smelled democracy, and did everything they could to
prevent cable (and satellite) from taking over the television
market.
Think about this for a
moment... once hundreds of channels became available to the
public, the networks should have gradually faded away and/or merged.
But instead, the opposite occurred, the various networks bought up
groups of cable channels; and, instead of there being dozens of
different voices and choices on television, the same handful of media
companies now own, operate and program the majority of stations.
These companies are owned by the same corporations who are
responsible for much of the advertising, and who also spend billions
of dollars lobbying to politicians to set national policy and write
the laws (that mostly benefit them).
It's not just the loss of education
and quality entertainment from a homogenized television universe
(most of the time there's nothing good on TV); but it's a
corporate-controlled media that operates in its own self-interest and
self-preservation that is the problem.
Fast forward to the
internet... The exact same thing has happened on the web. The
major corporate and media players have taken control, and now account
for the lion's share of online viewers. While people are still free
to blog, tweet, post and video each other, it's basically more of a
peer-to-peer, 'social' thing, not the sharing of new or different
ideas with millions. For example, Twitter and Facebook may top the
month with overall visitors on the web, but individual Twitter and
Facebook accounts are receiving nominal hits, and subsequently have
very little influence on public opinion. Conversely, CNN, FOX, NBC,
The New York Times, etc., are reaching more people than they have
ever reached before; with the added bonus of a whole new source of
advertising revenue.
So while on the surface, the internet
appears to be a million times greater than cable TV (with added
interactivity); in reality, it's the same old same old all over
again. Most people are exposed to the same corporate two-party
political ideas that only serve to maintain the status quo -- which
is turning most hard-working people into a slave-like workforce to
serve the bankers, media moguls and politicians. In effect, the U.S.
is becoming a zombie nation, and there's nothing that can be done
about it; since the people in charge are in control of the flow of
ideas. The average person simply isn't aware of what's being done to
them, and their freedoms (and by whom). Therefore when this average,
over-worked, under-paid person can't pay their bills -- instead of
looking to the true source of their problems -- they play political
scapegoat ping-pong -- back and forth, year after year, from one
political party to another. Meanwhile nothing ever changes -- it just
keeps getting worse -- with the same people in charge.
Obviously, this story will never make
it to the network nightly news; since they would be exposing
themselves for what they are -- a self-serving propaganda machine for
their corporate handlers and
politicians.
How Traditional Media Gobbled Up The Internet