Has news and information become a system of “Give them what they want to hear, not what they should be hearing”, or has it become “Give them what we want them to hear, not what they should be hearing”.

About 85% of the net financial assets in the US are owned by 10% of families, and about 50% of families own virtually nothing (or are in debt). This situation is probably the same in Australia and most other countries, but what it creates is a pyramid shaped structure, with a super elite at the top, who mostly control those below.

To control those below, the super elite can control politicians (which may be rather old fashioned by now), or they can control the media, and by controlling the media, they have more direct control over the minds of the people. The super elite now has a lot of control over the media, and I also think the super elite is not that interested in such things as the environment or human rights.

Alternative news sources and the Internet can provide a means of breaking away from the mainstream media, (and eventually getting away from the control of the super elite), but unfortunately the Internet appears to be coming under increased control by the mainstream media. For example, news sources such as “Google News” http://news.google.com/news?ned=au use algorithms to search for news, but those algorithms will generally ignore alternative news sources, and simply regurgitate mainstream news which is often controlled by the super elite.

What are the options for removing or reducing the pyramid shaped structure with a super elite at the top. Well one option is for mainstream journalists to start reporting what people “should” be hearing. If journalists don’t do this, they themselves will forever remain towards the bottom of the pyramid, like most other people.

I cannot agree, Peter, with any of your arguments.

You start with the bland assertion that "[t]his new 'information society' would be one in which information flows enabled a more cohesive and fairer world, where problems were identified and solved rationally". Even allowing for the fact that we were naive and callow youths in the 60s and 70s, who actually believed this nonsense? To proceed to "prove" that this utopian vision did not actually come to pass, and that the culprit is (big business, government, global finance markets, whatever) is about as convincing as blaming the same cadre for scientists' inability over the ages to turn base metal into gold.

Any medium of communication is, in and of itself, inert. Allowing views and ideas to travel more quickly between people cannot itself change those views and ideas. In fact, I would suggest that the most powerful communication-related change agent in the last century was the samizdat, much of whose power derived from its inherently restricted nature, not its ubiquity.

All that is "proved" in this piece is that we are aware more quickly than before of the insularity, fallibility and inherent stupidity of our fellow planet-dwellers than before. This is, I submit, useful information.

Splendid assessment, Peter, and terrifying. Norman Mailer wrote that "the boxcars of obsession are shuttled through the freight yards of sleep." In my book, "The Hedonists", I suggested that governments shuttle their "boxcars to a siding...[as]other boxcars [come] rushing along the main line...All they can aim at is to give each its turn of a moment's attention and then if they can, shunt each where it might mend itself or rot unobstrusively, without compromising their slim tenure of privilege and power."
Peter, can you send me your e-mail - to jcumes@monaco377.com - for longer comment.
Congratulations again.

Thank you, stopit, for a stunningly apt assessment of Peter's argument. You managed brilliantly to equal - nay, possibly surpass - his rapid-fire non-sequiturs, his long empty sentences, his incomprehensible conclusions.

Congratulations on a magnificent piece of cutting satire. I strongly suspect that its perfect construction will dupe him into perceiving it as praise! The finishing touch of a fictitious email address was masterly.

I think Peter has hit the enter key dead centre. I have experienced a similar kind of information control at a local level. Big powerful corporations (State Government, Catholic, etc) control our local paper to a large extent. One form of information control relevant to new technology is that the web site addresses of corporations are promoted through the media and another is that established organisations and their links are easy to locate by web searchers. This on top of the old control measures such as the F.O.I. scam that shields the powerful and exposes the poor to privacy invasion and defamation law that stifles criticism of influential citizens and corporations while leaving little folk open to ridicule and contempt. The free flow of information isn't having an impact on the system - when that information impacts on mainstream - then you will see some form of legislation or fee introduced. For now, sites like this are indeed clandestine operations - but only because you control the information that you produce - you don't, can't control those that control the technology.