Clinton Admin Feared Internet's Ability to Democraticize News 3 Years Before Drudge Bombshell

Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news would be consumed, President Bill Clinton's White House feared that the Internet was allowing average citizens, especially conservatives, to bypass legacy gatekeepers and access information that had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.

The infamous 1995 "conspiracy commerce memo" tried to demonize and discredit alternative media outlets on the right to mainstream media organizations and D.C. establishment figures.

The memo notes that the "Internet has become one of the major and most dynamic modes of communication" and "can link people, groups and organizations together instantly."

"Moreover, it allows an extraordinary amount of unregulated data and information to be located in one area and available to all," the memo states. "The right wing has seized upon the Internet as a means of communicating its ideas to people. Moreover, evidence exists that Republican staffers surf the Internet, interacting with extremists in order to exchange ideas and information.”(continued)

A leftist whom I knew at Brown University, was using a computer network and e-mail, in 1985-1986, and some kind of info-web by 1988-1989. The leftist always had the latest Apple Mac and worked for the Brown University campus computer help desk.

The leftist also was using the term “politically correct,” which I’d never heard of before. Being “politically correct” got you a job or entre. You had to be a leftist. The intolerance and exclusivity of the socialist elite, was already apparent.

Later online the WWW, I found various arguments by leftists at the University of Chicago, that their sought-after monopoly over the developing Internet/WWW, was being bypassed by conservatives and Republicans.

Ignored and thereby insulted, the leftists strenuously insisted that conservative news and information be banned because it is “ ... unfairly funded by ‘special interests.’” That’s the usual “disparity” racket from the left that refuses to relate its own virulent control over the info-tainment media (and demands employment termination for being “politically incorrect!”).

The far-left, controversial, contentious organization, PFAW (People for the American Way, founded in 1981) was a major proponent of ending free speech for conservatives. The 1986 Vice-President at PFAW, Melanne Verveer, became the WH Chief of Staff for Hillary Clinton.

The fact that conservatives by their own, personal efforts, were not interested in the leftist/liberal media and would search for more information and news other than leftist spin ... defied for example, the leftists’ mystical shibboleth of “informed sources” that too often have seemed to be “any two egos at a liberal elite establishment’s party, making up the following day’s ‘evening news’ confinements, in between drinks and snorts.”

The left desires that by force of law, you will feed upon the decisions that they expect you to take. You are *not* supposed to think independently nor in any view that opposes what the left gratuitously asserts with extreme prejudice.

In America before the 1920s, and anywhere else long after 1930, the term “liberalism” referred not to socialism but to its opposite, promotion of individual autonomy:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds;
was a liberal position when Theodore Roosevelt famously proclaimed it in 1910. The opposite of TR’s sentiment - what has been called “liberalism” in America since 1930 - is neatly encapsulated by Barak Obama:

”you didn’t build that."
It should be obvious that self-hyped “objective” journalism is actually naturally Theodore Roosevelt’s “critic” who never takes the risk of entering the arena but is very forward about criticizing the ones who do. There is no natural distinction between the predilection of the journalist and that of the anti-liberty socialist. Accordingly, journalists treat socialists as “fellow travelers” who, while never to be called “objective” (unless they take a position in journalism), are deserving of help and positive labeling.

Not only do journalists have a unifying common interest in promoting criticism over risk-taking performance, all major journalism institutions (and by implication their employees) are subject to the homogenizing influence of the wire services.
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

There is a systematic reason why journalists favor socialists and, therefore, there is no justification for according journalists the presumption of objectivity.

Attention AT&T - Verizon customers Netflix users .

Wondering why all the problems with Netflix streaming?

Netflix users on Verizon and AT&T get raw deal, have little reason for hope

Customers are the victim of stalled negotiations between ISPs and Netflix.

by Jon Brodkin - Mar 29 2014, 7:00am CST

Faster than streaming on Verizon and AT&T.
Kristin

“Why is Netflix so unreliable?” That’s one of the most common questions asked by Internet users today.

But that question gets asked by customers of some Internet service providers (ISPs) a lot more than customers of others. Netflix’s February rankings show that Google Fiber’s average Netflix speed of 3.74Mbps was more than twice as high as Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon, which are the first, second, and fourth biggest broadband providers in the country. Cablevision, Cox, Suddenlink, and Charter beat the biggest ISPs in the national speed rankings too. RCN, a smaller carrier in the Northeast, last year outperformed all opponents in a speed test of just the Boston area.
Further Reading
Verizon CEO confident about getting payments from Netflix, too

CEO: Netflix/Comcast deal proves Internet market doesn’t need much regulation.
The trend has been a downward one for months on Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T, yet only customers of Comcast have reason to hope it might improve. That’s because Netflix reluctantly agreed to pay Comcast for a direct connection to its network. Already, Netflix streaming on Comcast improved slightly in February and should continue to get better as more traffic goes over the direct connection between Netflix and Comcast.

But what about Netflix customers stuck with Verizon or AT&T? There’s nothing to do but wait.

For all its complaints about the country’s lack of net neutrality rules, Netflix has shown that it’s willing to pay what it calls ISP “tolls” to secure a better experience for users. But so far it’s only struck a deal with Comcast, and that may be because Comcast wanted to avoid extra scrutiny as it tries to convince the US government that it should be able to purchase Time Warner Cable.

Wedbush Securities wrote that Netflix will have a harder time making deals with ISPs other than Comcast.

Read at:

http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/netflix-users-on-verizon-and-att-get-raw-deal-have-little-reason-for-hope/

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.