[OESY]

There's a larger story here. Blogs and Internet news sources have long been criticized by the mainstream media as unreliable. However, in their arrogance borne of monopoly power over news, the MSM never allowed effective criticism and usually avoided making corrections comparable to the original error, if at all.

Thus, the new web media has vast advantages over its competition in terms of timeliness, public scrutiny, and flexibility to make changes. As a democratized forum which encourages dialogue, it has become the more reliable news source, while also meritorious for its convenience, efficiency, reach, cost and diversity of subjects and ideas.

What boggles the mind is how many other stories 60 Minutes and other MSM programs relied on forged documents or deceived viewers based on unvetted or poorly vetted materials in order to promote a point of view or political candidacy. Topically, some of that deception extends right back to the stories coming out of Vietnam, about how we were losing the war militarily -- which turned out to be a Big Lie orchestrated by the liberal monopoly networks of CBS, NBC and ABC. Thank goodness things have changed.

[ncpatriot]

I agree with you. I often wondered how the Internet would benefit society; now I know.

I also wonder if the White House (anonymously) could use FR to put ideas (like forgery) before the members to start activism? That way the WH would not look aggressive. Just a thought.

[Taliesan]

There is a connection deeper than accidental between the conservative temperament and the new cybermedia, and a reason deeper than journalism for the left's discomfort with the new cybermedia. It is a competition between a centralized control structure (the Old Media) and a laizze-fair structure (The cybershere).

Each structure has an error correcting mechanism, but they are very different. A useful parallel is the competition between a Soviet-style economy and the US economy.

Error correction in the OM is by an editor. Most importantly, all information stays secret until the editor approves its veracity. Similarly, in a central economy, the apparatchnik (theoretically) looks at all information and then places value on every good and service, which value is then transmitted down to the peons.

In contrast to that, in an open economy the PRICE carries all the information around to all parties, and every consumer has full information instantly available to him with need of an intermediary. So, in the cybermedia, there is no editor and all information is passed around openly. Crucially, there is no NEED FOR AN EDITOR IF ERRORS HAPPEN OPENLY, and are subject to review by all players. This open process finds a way to place a value on every supposed bit of info, just like the marketplace places a price on goods and services in a free economy.

The OM keeps screaming that that the lack of an editor is the horrid weakness of the internet process. They don't understand that the lack of an editor IS the new paradigm, the lack of an editor is THE STRENGTH of the cybermedia, and that the error correction method is the OPENNESS of the process.

The loudest screamers in the OM are the folks who never understood why the Soviet economy fell.

All this means that the death of the OM is certain, just as certain as the inevitable triumph of capitalism over communism. And the left hates the New Media because it removes any need for an intermediary, which puts them out of a job.

The left will NEVER EVER start up an effective cybermedia of its own because the structural model is antithetical to the wiring of their personalities.