I don't share your pessimism, Chris. For one reason, there is a
fundamental difference between the Internet medium and the traditional
media of print, radio and television. All the latter are point to
multipoint, or broadcast media. In a broadcast medium, the content is
controlled by who owns the transmitter (or printing press), whether that
is the state or the business paying for the advertisements, or whatever.
In a point to point medium, we're *all* transmitters (if we want to be).
I've heard it said that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (if I've
got the name right) is concerned about the changing attitudes to
information that young people have. It used to be that the ABC News was
the Truth, but now people are watching the news and saying "That's
interesting. I wonder where I can find another angle on that." In other
words they are being more critical about what they hear. This seems to
me to be an entirely Good Thing.
I take issue with you over the idea of Truth-with-a-capital-T because I
think for all practical purposes, there's no such thing. Most of the
people who want you to think there is, have a vested interest, because
the next thing they want you to believe is that *their* story is the
Truth. The best we can hope for is the ability to hear all sides of the
story, and that's what the Internet potentially gives us.
The reason for the amount of advertising on the Internet is largely down
to the fact that people aren't content for it to be cheap - they want it
to be 'free'. And if 'free' means someone else paying for it, and if
McDonald's is happy to pick up the tab in return for reminding you just
how <irony>delicious</irony> their food is, then so be it.
And speaking of irony, I did find it delightfully ditto that your
message came with an advertisement for a Microsoft service appended to
it.
Best,
--
Peter
http://www.hphoward.demon.co.uk/poetry/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|