There's an undertone here that I think unfairly glamorizes the old media. I'm not sure there's been a very compelling case made that today's Web 2.0 spin is any worse than the spin and propaganda of a century ago.
There is a greater accessibility today, both from a creation and consumption standpoint, to be sure. However, the central argument here seems inherently flawed. When has the press ever been "free" in any sense? And how does greater accessibility in the Digital Age make it less free (or put it "at risk")? I'm still not seeing it.
|