The Internet: Our Last Hope for a Free Press

I consider the Internet to be one of the world's great wonders. And also America's last hope for a free press.

When I was growing up in the 1970s, there were many people with a lot of things to say, but they generally had no platform. That's why we needed figures like Bob Dylan to be "the voice of a generation."

The present generation has YouTube, whose motto -- irresistible to young people -- is "Broadcast Yourself." So now, for example, a pert 18-year-old known as "AngryLittleGirl" can challenge her peers regarding their lack of critical thinking, especially when it comes to religion, by uploading a video op-ed. As of this moment, her piece has been viewed by more than two million people.

YouTube is but one manifestation of a rapidly expanding "social media" that performs the vital function of promoting honest discussion and analysis at a time when spin, trivia, and advertising dominate the mass market profit-driven mainstream media -- or MSM as it is often called on the net. Social media also encompasses web-based interactive communication tools such as blogs, message boards, forums, pod casts, online communities, and wikis.

I have seen bloggers expose mistakes and biases in the MSM within hours or even minutes of an article's release. For instance, when New York Times science writer William Broad ran a piece deflating Al Gore's claims about global warming, numerous bloggers pounced on it for being sloppy and skewed. Among them were Robert Dietz and Julie Millican at Media Matters, who documented how Broad had misrepresented the backgrounds of most of the supposedly "rank-and-file" experts quoted.

I don't know what possessed Broad to so bend his reporting that he would lose credibility across a wide swath of readers (something he has in common with journalist Judith Miller, with whom he co-authored a book), but I do know that the MSM has become consolidated to the point that just a few transnational conglomerates and capital management companies control network TV, commercial radio, and most of our newspapers.

As for the repercussions of this ominous development, John Carroll, former editor of the Los Angeles Times, states them quite clearly: "Gone is the notion that a newspaper should lead, that it has an obligation to the community, that it is beholden to the public." The current owners, he explains, care only about money, and "are sometimes genuinely perplexed to find people in their midst who do not feel beholden, first and foremost, to the shareholder."

Bloggers are in an entirely different position: They tend to be mavericks who work for free, and operate far from the sources of power. Feeling no need to ingratiate themselves with the movers and shakers of industry and government, they simply tell it like it is from where they sit as concerned, informed citizens with diverse areas of expertise. Though they don't often have professional training as journalists, many of them exceed professional journalistic standards, because they answer to their consciences alone rather than to corporate honchos and fund managers. We need to hear from such people, and the fact that there are more blogs out there worth reading than anyone has time to read is a hopeful sign.

Of course, the blogosphere is also filled with nonsense, and worse -- as might be expected in any open space that lacks gatekeepers. The all-too-human reality of the web is that the majority of its traffic is directed to sex sites. What's more, hate groups of all kinds find it a perfect forum to purvey their sick ideas. Even the benign Wikipedia can be used to disseminate false information with an effortlessness that has earned it the gratitude of propagandists everywhere.

How remarkable, then, that out of the cyberslime the lotus of a truly free press has been able to grow. Citizens seeking to avail themselves of the valuable commentary to be found on the web, as well as the fact checking services of legions of bloggers, can learn to easily bypass the detritus and go directly to those sites that offer valuable content.

Where, though, does one turn for in-depth investigative reporting? Though projects such as The Real News Network are attempting to create an alternative, the MSM is still pretty much the only show in town. Bloggers are generally not trained or equipped to do such reporting, and anyway, it´s a full time job that usually requires travel and a support staff, as well as knowledge and contacts developed over many years.

Newspapers carry out at least 80% of primary reporting. And yet the newspapers have repeatedly failed us, sometimes with tragic consequences, such as during the buildup to war in Iraq. In his documentary Buying the War, Bill Moyers (an exception to the rule that there are no outstanding journalists working in television) exposes how reporters at newspapers such as the Washington Post consistently deferred to the wishes of the Bush administration or were tricked, pressured or seduced into doing so. And behind Bush are the huge corporations that helped to put him into power, including those that own the MSM. What's a citizen to do?

Again I say: go to the Internet. Though it's worthwhile to read the print publications that pursue quality reporting -- and some of the smaller ones really need our support -- subscribing is not essential: nearly all of the important articles from these publications may be found on the web, and bloggers often link to them. And besides, there is also some fine web-based reporting, such as (to pick an example that is apropos to this discussion) the Salon piece that dissected and disposed of the myth, perpetuated by the MSM in tandem with then press secretary Ari Fleischer, that the exiting Clinton staff had removed the W's from their keyboards, and in other ways vandalized government property.

As our titanic democracy is sinking and the band of trivia and denial plays on, each Internet connection can function as an intellectual life preserver. The net has also proved invaluable as a way for concerned citizens to offer support to each other, and to act together for political and social change.

From Salon in 1995, to Common Dreams in 1997, AlterNet in 1998, truthout in 2001, The Raw Story in 2004, and The Huffington Post in 2005, the news coverage on the Internet has matured to the point where we don't really need to deal directly with the MSM anymore. As my wife says, "No MSG in my takeout; no MSM in my living room." One household at a time, we'll escape the grasp of the Rupert Murdochs of this world, at least when they meddle with our freedom of the press.

Thanks to Paul Glover and Richard Silverstein for commenting on an early version of this piece. To read other pieces by Mark Klempner, visit www.hearthasreasons.com

Comments

[rollingdivision]

We must remain constantly concerned about the concentration of media ownership. The internet is a medium which does not as readily lend itself to economies of scale as most other media which is good. Imagine how much different a world this would be without the internet, it's scary.

[Marlyn]

Very scary. I no longer watch TV, so all my news comes from the net. But it is so easy for internet access to be mysteriously denied.

My experience has been that for two weeks I was unable to access Huffington Post. My ISP Cox claimed that it wasn't their fault, saying that the problem was that the DNS (Domain Name Server) was not responding. What's with that?

[chazaroo]

Be prepared for an all out assault on the internet. The fascists who control this country realize the danger and possibility of losing the control of the message. We must be extremely vigiliant, the only thing at stake is our country. The internet will destroy the wingnut ideology.

[GenericBlogger]

Mark Klempner,

Your article on the blogosphere's impact is impressive.

Before declaring the internet as the only credible news source, its limited expanse must be seriously considered even in this day and age. There are too many people who aren't sufficiently computer literate to obtain news on a computer. There are many who aren't connected to the internet and of those who are, there are too many with a slow dialup connection which almost prohibits viewing videos or large web pages. Broadband internet providers don't have the bandwidth for us to see TV quality video on our computers.

Network TV news significantly deteriorated. I watch PBS, BBC, and 60 Minutes when possible. Corporatization of TV networks stripped from their news divisions the adversarial edge needed to obtain the hard news and polluted news programs with celebrity stories and other fluff. Sound bite TV news lacks the extensive coverage available in an in-depth textual story.

The major source of news for me is the internet but I am not ready to bid farewell to TV news despite my cynical outlook on the wimpy nature of network news divisions. TV investigative reports are not only appealing but valuable as well. Ultimately I spend more time on the internet for the most of the news I wish to know about but the blogosphere has its limitations. Despite its appeal, the blogosphere doesn't gather the majority of the news stories. There is no Charlie Rose or Bill Moyers on the blogosphere. Both have web sites but the bulk of their work is produced through TV news. There are no extensive or in-depth investigative reports with continuous video such as Front Line or Bill Moyer's reports. The blogosphere is primarily textual and the old adage that a picture is worth a thousands words still rings true.

TV is still a major news source for many. Don't discount newspapers, magazines, and radio. They are far from extinction and painfully adapting.

Like it or not, we still need more than the internet for news.

[backhandpath]

Agreed. However I think we should learn how to use printing presses.
Consider Burma when we think of Net Neutrality, then consider the identities of those who lobby against Net Neutrality and thus take away our current open access to the Net by disturbing that pool of Neutrality.

[GenericBlogger]

You are right and it's not just Burma (Myanmar). The Burmese government can easily block the internet because that country has only two (2) internet service providers.

Some Ismalic countries censor web sites or parts of the internet. A few months ago Brazil blocked YouTube because it showed a video of one of its famous models who died from anorexia.

Our military blocked certain web sites to prevent our troops from sending out their videos and other content. That type of censorship is understandable when it legitemately prevents security problems.

One of the Chinese government ministers interviewed by Charlie Rose this past summer admitted that China blocks certain web sites. If a large country like China can successfully block sites, any other country can do the same.

We have become so dependant on the internet that alternative media have been reduced in scope, in some cases to our detriment.

[JustifiablyParanoid]

And I thought I was cynical. Why is it that everyone forgets that we have the power and the potential to make sure the internet remains a "free" domain?

Anyone ever see footage of the Vietnam anti-war protests?

If everyone gets off their asses and decide to publicly organize and protest against all the stuff they don't agree with, why...I think something positive could come of that.

[DemandTruth]

Yup. I go to the internet for my news. And to the TV for my entertainment. Never the twain shall meet - except on Keith Olbermann, The Daily Show, and Colbert.

[dadw5boys]

How long will Free Speech last on the web with Homeland Security monitoring the web?
Traces of web page changes have already been tracedto them.

[realitytrumpsbull]

When Rupert buys up all the newspapers and TV channels, there's always Xerox machines and the backside of his limo, and spray n stik...hehehe

[MasterfullyInept]

Gee I sure hope that net neutrality thing works out or we're really screwed.

[realitytrumpsbull]

Th'innirnit is not a medium impervious to
tweak-fiddling, so-minded persons with sufficient computing power and the skill can
and have played havoc with it. If you read
about phishing, and how that works, you can
kind of guess how 'they' might try to go about
messing with all kinds of things, from news
sites to 'blog pages. China does it all day long. So, question is, how long before THAT
practice gets imported to the good ol' Yew Ess
Uv Ayy?
And, if you read the news about asia, they
shut the internet off over there. They shut it
off. So, digi-land may be faster, may be more
fun, but you can also kill it with the flip of
a switch. How many people/businesses
/stores/media outlets etc can you think of that are now internet-dependent? Dependency is a weakness...interesting times we live in...

[whistlingfish]

If the Internet is, indeed, our last hope for a free press, then the lesson learned from Burma should be this: Find a secondary means of communication to use as a backup when the Web fails. Because the Internet is fragile and can be interrupted or blocked in an instant.

In some ways that's already occurring commercially. Most searches now lead to a handful of sites, and more and more the independent Web is being marginalized out of the picture. No matter how true or how liberating the information you publish, if it isn't being seen, it doesn't matter. More than ever the Web needs a network of independent content providers to compete with what is corporately acceptable. Huffington Post could facilitate and promote such a network -- one that extends beyond its own infrastructure.

Bottom line is, I agree with your assessment, but I feel it imperative that we not only protect the Web from over-regulation but have an alternative network in the event the Internet -- for whatever reason -- fails.

(I not only promote the independent Web, I participate: http://www.whistleandfish.com/)

[DrVeruju]

A clumsy alternative would be telephone trees - but they would not be (essentially) anonymous like most of the web.

I still think, even now, pamphlets/leaflets would help spread the word, after all most of us have printers and one has to take an action to get rid of a piece of paper so it is likely to hang about for a while.

[whistlingfish]

I recall FidoNet working pretty darned well in the days before the Web. As long as telephone lines held out, it would still be a viable electronic network that would circumvent the Web.

But you're right. In a fix phone trees would work, as well as going door-to-door. It really shook me up to see how easily the flow of information was literally shut down in Burma.

[FearlessFreep]

If only there'd been a blogosphere in the '80s! Reagan would have had a harder time getting away with his crimes.

[crusaderbunnypants]

Yeah right, my youtube account was suspended this week. http://www.youtube.com/blogofascist

[Tellmethetruth]

The radio and the movies came in a the new communications in the 1920's and 1930's allowing illiterates the chance to be informed and also brainwashed. Hitler used both to shut down information. After World War II, it was TV - but look at what a black out it now is, although we are all "programmed" by commericial to spend our lives consuming products that a prior generation spend their lives manufacturing.

Most people still use the internet to play video games with. I think the intelligencia is still a small percentage that uses the internet to express opinions and revolutionary ideas. I suppose it would be easy for some facist regime to confiscate our computers and figure out who the thinking people are, and just like Nazi Germany or the Russian Revolution make sure the thinking people are the first to go.

But for now enjoy. I think we all know this won't last.