Without the Internet, would we have any access to the truth?

[NYC_SKP]

I'm thinking, "No".

Which is why Net Neutrality is so important.

Obama plans to address this and media consolidation, this last of which is largely to blame for the trash that we're fed.



If the Big Eight media conglomerates gobble up any more ISPs, we're in deep doodoo.

In 2002 the Nation publish a great guide to the Big Ten, now it's Eight.

http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html

:kick:

[liberal N proud]

1. Of course not.

This is why the regime has been trying to place restrictions on the internet in any way they can. Net Freedom was of course anything but.
One needs to look no further than China for what the government does to truth without open internet access.

[mmonk]

2. You would have to be a lot quicker on your feet.

There are important things being reported, but in short fashion in the manner of short reports buried deep in the print media.

[Warpy]

3. Yes and no

Remember, the lumpen don't get news from the net. They surf the web for shopping, fashion, gossip, sports, and porn.

However, even they have awakened to the fact that Stupid is heading a government full of lying SOBs who are out to stripmine every cent out of them.

That's because the chirpy people on the evening news keep telling them how great the economy is while they and their families have faced downsizing and offshoring while watching double digit inflation at the gas pump and supermarket. It's because the blow dried bobbleheads are telling them about those lovable scamps Britney and Paris instead of telling them why the prices are inflating by double digits and how much more of it they can expect.

People aren't quite as stupid as the corporate news thinks they are. The truth is getting through to them every time they consider that their jobs are not secure, their paychecks stalled, prices increasing, debt load is increasing, and they can't even afford to get sick or die.

[Submariner]

4. The Bush 8 years would be a scary thought with no internet

I can't imagine what those crooks could have gotten away with if we did not have the net. Probably closer to a dictatorship and outright fascism than I even want to contemplate.

[NYC_SKP]

6. My thoughts exactly!

If we stop to imagine having largely only the broadcast network and local news and crappy cable news and conglomerate owned print media?

It would be just like a dictatorship, in terms of information fed.

:hi:

[mmonk]

7. Correct.

I would hate to fathom. Since there have been no effective checks on power (all systems have failed), the propaganda would shield awareness of what has happened.

[kentuck]

15. I have thought the same. Where would we be today?

It's a very scary thought. There's so much we don't know - even with the Internet. I can't imagine what we would not know if there was no Internet?

[NYC_SKP]

22. We're blessed to be able to look up even the most mundane bit of info.

Twenty four hours a day, if I want to figure out who was in that movie with that guy, what's his name, that was filmed in NY....

I can get it.

Of course, the ability to check facts and find multiple sources, or original sources, for news or political items is invaluable in today's world.

And, this capacity is available even in the most remote parts of the world, given a solar panel, batteries, and satellite dish, which together can serve a whole community in, say, the middle of the Amazon basin.

The past had nothing like it.

Powerful stuff and we can't let it's neutrality slip away.

:hi:

[NYC_SKP]

46. It's down to the Big Six

The Nation updated the list, here's the link:

http://www.thenation.com/special/2006_entertainment.pdf

:kick:

[EV_Ares]

5. Very important question & of course of which the answer is NO and

also which is why they want control of the internet, just as China, etc.

You know, all anyone has to do is make a news analysis of how the news is fed to us and it doesn't take a genius to see what is going on.

Also, it is a natural progression of capitalism. Corporations want more power, more money, more growth, protect themselves and run the countries which is what is happening now.

Net Neutrality is so very important, sort of like the last stand to truth, information and protection for the grassroots of our population to have a say in our government; whats left of it.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

8. Not so much

With so many individuals reading different sources and making you aware of something not in your field of vision and that that truth or insight is strengthened and collaborated by someone else who knows a different part of the puzzle - it's amazing to watch stories unwind sometime. This makes the Internet much more interesting than static news for the most part - although what is being reported IS the static news- just in combinations.

It also functions as a giant memory repository where you can dig things back up long after the fact or initial exposure. Although, I am noticing that my Google searches lately are not as fruitful as I think they should be. I can type in specific names and phrases that I KNOW appeared together in more than one article and still come up dry sometimes. Anyone have any tips or insights on how to do better searches? Is there a better engine than Google for stuff like this? Does anything EVER drop out completely of a Google search?

[Uncle Joe]

18. I agree, Phoebe, I believe the Internet creates a synergy or higher group mind

more intelligent than the brightest individual, everyone can bring something to the table.

Regarding Google my next post will be responding to another poster on this thread regarding the search for truth at libraries. I will be posting a D.U. thread on that regarding the issue but the original link continues to say high traffic, I don't know if it's been messed with or not.

[NYC_SKP]

34. Yes, it's an entirely different, more interactive, paradigm.

This, in addition to the higher speed, archiving, greater access to more classes of people across broader geographies.

[Uncle Joe]

36. Yes and I believe it has another effect as well, generally speaking, ideas are debated

on their merits and unless you know the other blogger or poster personally, you can't tune out someone else's proposal because of a conscious or subconscious bias against their skin color, gender, religion, regional dialect, etc. etc.

Even deaf or hard of hearing people are more included in the national dialog and I imagine many are less lonely because of the Internet.

In that regard, I see the Internet as the closest technological creation or fulfillment to date of Martin Luther King's dream.

Thanks for the thread, NYC_SKP

[CrispyQ]

9. It was only when I started searching for news on the internet

that I realized just how poorly our media was reporting events. I still don't know whether to laugh or cry when I hear people accuse the media of being liberal. This bumper sticker says it all: The media is only as liberal as the conservative corporations that own them.

[Stuart G]

10. Yes..of course..we would.

But that search for the truth would be much more difficult. We would have to spend a lot of time in the library looking through
a number of periodicals, domestic as well as foreign. The internet has made that search so easier, but the truth is available to those who would take the time.
..Unfortunately, most of us do not have easy access to libraries with extensive periodical and newspaper collections
, so the internet enables us to seek truth in a way that is much easier and accessible.

[Uncle Joe]

20. Apparently even the libraries are having problems with Big Brother.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5652396

"Homeland Security Interrogates College Student Regarding Library Book"

[SmileyRose]

11. I'm surprised that's even a question.

NO.

[TexasObserver]

12. No, without the internet we would be screwed, blued, and tattooed.

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. Jesus. Without the internet, we would all be walking in our respective

villages with a scarlet letter branded on our face: "D" for dissenter.

[kentuck]

14. Without the Internet, you might know the truth...

But you would have no way to organize it. We should never underestimate the power of the truth. Sometimes it is like pornography - you only know it when you see it. Tom Paine would have been proud. :-)

[windoe]

16. Only virtual free speech is left

when you think about it. Wear the wrong tee shirt to school or carry the wrong sign and you are toast. Internet has to be preserved!!
Also virtual voting and virtual money is where we are at now--too easy to 'delete' if you ask me.

[Tutonic]

17. And if GW and Cheney can complete their plan, you won't have

a free internet. Ask ATT, Verison, SBC et al.

[spanone]

19. not a prayer

[alphafemale]

21. How on earth did humanity learn the truth and conduct revolutions before the internet?

Please.

[NYC_SKP]

23. The subject line was merely a lead into the concept that we must defend..

...our internet neutrality, fight corporate and media consolidation, and support the candidate in his efforts to assist and lead us.

It was not to be taken as an absolute assertion.

Warm regards,

NYC_SKP

[amandabeech]

28. Back in the old days, it was more difficult, especially outside

major cities and college towns.

Alternative news generally came from small magazines and obscure dailies. It was also passed around by speaking events (which were very well attended on my campus), word of mouth and occasional forays into truth telling by the mainstream media. You probably don't remember, but the Washington Post (Woodward & Bernstein) and the New York Times (the Pentagon Papers) played a big, BIG role in pulling down Richard Nixon and ending the Vietnam War. Both papers are shadows of their once heroic selves, but then, the internet has stolen some of their thunder.

The dissidents in the Soviet Union passed around "samizdat" (iffy spelling), which were hand-copied versions of the truth and dissident writers like Solzhenitsyn (also iffy spelling).

The internet is much easier and much faster, but when people are motivated, they will get the truth out, one way or another.

[Nikia]

32. There were more independent news sources

In the past, almost all cities of any size had more than one daily newspaper. Now even few big cities have more than one daily paper. I live in Wisconsin and the daily papers in many small cities are all owned by one corporation, Gannet. There has always been a limit on how many radio stations there are, but now many local stations are owned by one company. I see these trends as limiting the sources of traditional media that there have been in the past. For others to get their voices out, the internet seems to be the best source.

[rainbow4321]

24. In November 2004, days before the election the M$M was all about the SNL lip-synching scandal

involving Ashlee Simpson...meanwhile as I surfed the 'Net I found articles about how the US Coast Guard released their own report about
their boats/equipment: outdated, broken down, not replaced, and they questioned if they would be up to protecting the country. This was from the CG itself, not a third source. Meanwhile, in the other room, I hear MSNBC going on and on and on with the SNL video and interviewing everyone under the sun about the lip-synching. They rolled the tape every 15 minutes, dissecting every move.
Then I read more 'Net news....TSA is questioning the millions it had given to some huge company for airport security. It was a contract gone bad. TSA saying that despite getting the large federal contract, the company was screwing the government and messing with airport security.

Still, in the background, I keep hearing the biggest "news of the day" from the TV media..the lip synching scandal.

SO there I sat, days before a Presidential election where "homeland security" was supposed to be a huge issue, and the only real news I got was from myself using my little ol' desktop computer.

How many Americans get their news from the background noise of cable news and how many actively seek it out on their own computer? Judging from Nov 2004, I'd say most get it from the background noise.

[NYC_SKP]

25. No doubt. And sadly, there's nothing out there of quality if they wanted it.

As more and more get their video and internet from one of the Big Eight, even a well-funded alternative news channel wouldn't be carried.

And a well funded independent conventional (vhf or uhf) station wouldn't be picked up by most sets.

So, the internet is all we have.

:patriot:

[MadrasT]

26. Great cartoon

The idea of the last 8 years without the intertubes is a very scary one, indeed.

If we had to rely on M$M, there would be a bunch more sheeple than there already are... and/or we all would have to be working a lot harder to learn the facts...

[NYC_SKP]

27. Yeah, I just came across it. nt

[datasuspect]

29. truth is universal and accesible to all

however, there are too many people who lack the faculties to apprehend it.

[JackRiddler]

30. In the 1980s...

One could have known, if one tried, the following:

- That the main Contra force out of Honduras was a CIA-created army, nothing more, and would never have existed without the CIA.

- About the "CIA-Drugs" Contra cocaine connection

- That North was involved in martial law planning with FEMA

- That US-approved arms shipments to Iran started through Israel in 1981, as opposed to later as claimed in the Iran-Contra cover-up, indicating the truth of the "October Surprise" scenario in the 1980s election.

- That the US and the West were arming both Iran and Iraq in their war with each other.

In general, one can figure out when the government is lying about foreign policy and covert operations (generally: always).

But the Internet helps immeasurably in reaching a wider audience - also, unfortunately, in slinging more bullshit. On the whole, I see it as a big plus.

The reality of the Vietnam war was known throughout the 1960s, to anyone who cared to find out about it.

[NYC_SKP]

31. All true, but the difficulty in tracking down these facts was great,

and the time and effort involved meant that few would learn these things.

Arguably, there were also more independent conventional media players than there are today.

The instantaneous nature of data retrieval and availability to virtually all people, rural or urban, via an unfiltered Internet is unprecedented.

:thumbsup:

[JackRiddler]

38. Of course...

Internet (mostly) good & unprecedented & widespread. Also, however: its outlets have low or no budget, little organization, and there is little respect even to the organized sources who do proper investigative journalism like TPM and Consortium.

The number of independent professional and properly financed players in the past and their willingness to report on reality was immeasurably higher than now. This was a huge difference. Just look at what the establishment Wash Post was willing to do with Nixon, as opposed to no papers at all taking on the Bush regime's far more flagrant illegal actions. The facts of Iran-Contra came out thanks to Miami Herald, Village Voice, in part even the NYT - these are all now mostly fluff sheets or semi-neocon.

No need to be nostalgic or starry-eyed about either situation, past or present. Then was CIA Mockingbird employing 450 journalists directly, now we have the Rovian noise, and plenty of Mockingbird you can be certain.

[Nikia]

33. Not as much

The internet allows people from all over the world to voice their opinions in a public forum. This is the best chance that most of us have to voice our views to many people.

[sammythecat]

35. That's a scary thought.

I never considered that, really.

Thank God for the internet. No, I don't think we'd have access to the truth without it. The people who provide us with the truth via the internet might have found some other ways to make their voices heard, but it would be much harder and not as effective.

[DailyGrind51]

37. With both print and broadcast media becoming more interested in entertainment

than hard new stories, the Internet is the last bastion of the truth.

[EstimatedProphet]

39. With the internet, do we have any truth?

[Uncle Joe]

40. More so than the one way propaganda dictated by a handful of corporations

and edited by their chosen few.

When a few primarily one way communicating corporations own the mega horns that are the voices heard around the nation and world, there is no way the truth can hold up to their self-serving agenda and the temptations of power.

This isn't to say the Internet doesn't have it's own propaganda, falsehood and myth, but the free flow of information make it easier to expose and as the Internet is literally made of the people, their experiences as a whole are far more likely to reflect reality or the truth than insulated centralized corporations reflecting the will of those at the top.

With the Internet we can debate the truth for the entire world to see and as the Internet grows in the number of participants, with the exponential increase in knowledge, expertise and overall skill level in all fields, the truth will become ever more refined.

[EstimatedProphet]

42. Maybe, maybe not

I think instead what we have is a free-flow of communication, not information. It looks like information, but it is as easy to spread a lie on the internet as it is to spread the truth. I'm not saying mass media is to be strived for, but the internet has in and of itself no fact-checking where people communicating with each other is concerned.

[Uncle Joe]

45. Today, we have an unprecedented amount of information going back to the dawn of human history.

At no time has the average human had so much information at their fingertips, and not only information, instant guidance or analysis as to the meaning of it.

While I agree with you to a certain point, it is easy to post or spread a lie on the Internet, I believe the lies have limited shelf life as they're refuted by the people.

On a micro level these lies may succeed for a while but not on the macro level, I can lie to you and you can lie to me, but when the lie becomes blatant to those in the know, they will chime in.

I believe the Internet sums up the general spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in that the people are created equal and they can govern them selves.

When you throw in a formal level of bureaucracy such a "fact checker", you start undermining that philosophy, to start with who will fact check the "fact checkers"? What if the "fact checkers" should become concentrated or corrupted?

I don't believe the Internet is perfect, but I also don't believe humanity is perfect and yet today the Internet is as close as humanly possible to perfection in the big scheme of things.

[ColbertWatcher]

41. Link to "Big 6", also from The Nation...

...PDF here.

[NYC_SKP]

44. Thanks, C.W.

Down to Six, yikes!

:hi:

[lonestarnot]

43. No! We would never hear truth again!

[Two Truck]

47. so everything in the internets is true?

Wow, what a releif that is... so Obama is a muslim then, I read it yesterday.
True or false, it's simply diseminated alot faster. That, it the biggest problem with it. No time is spent to determine whether or not
there is any truth to it at all.
The race is on for everybodys 15 minutes of fame regarding the net. It just like the tablids,only a digital edition most days.
It's the inability of people to diferentiate fact from fallacy, that little part deep inside of everybody that so wants something to be true, even though they know it isn't, just to give them a feeling of certainty.
A desire to be right can, and has, lead many down a path of disinformation and deciet.
But sometimes it's true..."You can lead a man to slaughter, but you can't make him think."

[NYC_SKP]

48. yes...all true!

as true as everything you hear or read or see on teevee..

:shrug:

[bdamomma]

49. oh god, we would be a nation of sheep if this was the case.

but the truth does rear its head.

[dembotoz]

50. have we all forgotten shortwave radio????????

maybe i am just too old

shortwave radio used to give you the option to here broadcast from all over the world.
Yes it was goverment influenced. But if you took the time to listen to what the bbc, deutchevella,
france, and on occasion moscow and cuba, you could at least get some idea of what was going on elsewhere and how we were (are) percieved.

One very early discovery is that there is a whole lot of stuff going on that isn't being reported in the local and national media.
I wonder how many of us are still guilty of this. Sure we 'search' the internet, but we tend to rely on us news products.

[NYC_SKP]

51. Shortwave and HAM, good buddy!

Those are truly free airwaves, in a real emergency with no infrastructure that's all that would be left.
The same is true in a future without a free internet...we're perilously close to that world.
Funny, I was just thinking about shortwave and HAM radio today. I was just driving today across Oregon, some pretty sketchy one lane BLM roads from the coast to Interstate 5, and thought about how useless my cellphone was.

[OnyxCollie]

52. I suspect taking out the Internets will be part of the next terrorist "attack".

Too much info available to the masses. Best to limit them to domestic newspapers and cable channels that will catapult the propaganda.

[yurbud]

53. I read a book before 9/11 that made everything after instantly recognizable as bullshit

It was THE PRIZE by Daniel Yergin, the Pulitzer Prize winning history of oil.

Likewise, I grew up next to a NORAD base, and did cadet stuff there and had talked to pilots and read books about the air force for years, so I knew what should have happened on 9/11.

And I remember the Cold War, when we stared down an enemy that had as many or more nukes than us, so saying we were going to have an endless war on a stateless enemy that couldn't put one airplane in the air or tank on the battlefield against us. We have to give up our rights and possibly even our democracy for a ''threat'' that we treated roughly as seriously as a school shooting a few decades earlier?

You didn't need the internet to know all that. You just needed to trust your memory more than the lying sacks of spokesmodels on TV.

[representativepress]

54. Please show your solidarity with Representative Press, it isn't listed!

see video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAwFyN6pz4E&feature=PlayList&p=53AE075EB604E2D1&index=0&playnext=1">Is this happening to any other YouTube partner? Solidarity!
> Why is this happening?
:wtf: :mad: :grr:

Please show your solidarity with representative Press
see this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAwFyN6pz4E&feature=PlayList&p=53AE075EB604E2D1&index=0&playnext=1"> this video
>

[defendandprotect]

55. All news media is being attacked and shut down . . .

What we all knew individually -- the truth of what is going on --- was confirmed when we could
all communicate with one another on the internet.

I don't know, however, that it has resulted in sufficient organizing --- ???

[NYC_SKP]

56. Good question to consider, "sufficient organizing".

The Internet will probably never catch up to it's potential as a medium for organizing people.

It's reach, it's depth, it's speed, continue to increase. How people use it lags considerably behind it's full potential, and probably always will.

But that doesn't diminish it's significance.

:thumbsup:

[NYC_SKP]

57. big six...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3644792#3655142

six groups control 96% or more of all media....