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.