The article is written in conformity with a formula familiar to those who have been exposed to the plethora of liberal oriented hit pieces that can hardly be avoided by any literate person in this society. The author adopts an air of snide condescension at the outset, pretending to take the Clinton administration to task for its "paranoid" reaction to the proliferation of "conspiracy theories" to be found on the Internet and in the alternative media in general. As one reads on, however, it is clear that the author's purpose is supportive of the administration -- he seeks to lump together all adverse information concerning the Clinton regime, regardless of merit, into one amorphous mass labeled "conspiracy theories" which he then undertakes to denigrate in a most devious and inaccurate manner. No attempt is made to separate the wheat from the chaff, the implication being that there is nothing of value to be found in any of it.
Consider, for example, the cavalier way he dismisses the allegation that Vince Foster's putative suicide note was forged. He tells us that three handwriting experts called a press conference at which they declared the note to be a forgery. He does not tell us anything about the background of the three experts, such as the fact that one of them is an Oxford don and an internationally recognized expert in the field of document verification. Instead he cynically implies that they have been bought off by James Dale Davidson, whom he characterizes as "a full-time investment-newsletter publisher and part-time Clinton-hater."
Mr. Plotz sees no need to tell us about the fact that, as late as 1992, Mr. Davidson was an avid Clinton supporter and contributed generously to his presidential campaign that year. Nor does he make any attempt to assess the validity of the allegation that the note was forged. Instead he describes in tedious detail the circuitous passage of the story about the press conference from one publication to the next (being careful to label them "right wing" while he is at it), as though there were something vaguely sinister about printing a story that does not bear the imprimatur of the haughty press lords at The New York Times or The Washington Post. As William Powers points out in his recent New Republic article on the White House view of the media "food chain," there are problems with this analysis of the information flow: "One is its implication that there is something inherently wrong with news stories that originate with the administration's political enemies."
But that would seem to be the at the very core of Mr. Plotz's view of the issue. Again and again he points out the anti-administration orientation of news sources and publications as though that somehow invalidated them. Then, ominously, he adds, "The administration's charge that the Internet has become a conduit and multiplier of Clinton tall tales poses a tricky question about the Web: Is the free flow of information always a good thing? The Internet is a marvelous instrument for educating large numbers of people very quickly, but it is also a marvelous instrument for deceiving large numbers of people very quickly."
In other words, this free speech stuff is all very well so long as it is kept in the right hands (his own, for example), but if it is going to be used for "deceiving large numbers of people" (i.e. providing the public information he would rather they didn't know) maybe it's time to rethink the whole thing. In this Mr. Plotz seems to parrot the attitude expressed in that much derided White House report concerning the fact that the Internet "allows an extraordinary amount of unregulated data and information to be located in one area and available to all. The right wing has seized upon the internet as a means of communicating its ideas to people."
Saints preserve us from the curse of "unregulated information" and Heaven forfend that the First Amendment should be used for such a nefarious purpose as enabling the "right wing" to communicate its ideas to people. What could be more subversive than that? Those heretics have long since been excommunicated by the high priests of the "mainstream" press (9 out of 10 of whom voted for Bill Clinton). And now they are attempting to slip back into the game via the Internet? Clearly stern measures must be taken to protect the monopoly on information heretofore enjoyed by our degenerate, hollow parody of a "free press" -- that champion and defender of the kneejerk liberal faith -- from incursions by these infidels.
Mr. Plotz, a word of advice -- if you, or any of your overprivileged elitist colleagues would entertain, however fleetingly, the notion of "regulating" political discourse on Internet as you have in the mainstream press, forget it. The tide of history has turned against you. Learn to take this fact of life with good grace and a modicum of humor. The main reason people are turning away from the mainstream media in increasing numbers and looking to alternative sources for information is that they no longer trust or believe those who represent themselves to the public as objective journalists.
The mainstream press simply do not cover a large number of stories that are of interest to people in this country. And the stories they do cover are quite often misrepresented in ways that seem cynically contrived to promote the political and ideological agendas of the media elite. We don't need a First Amendment to sustain the kind of controlled press we now have in this country; the laws of most any police state would serve just as well.
You, and the people at Slate, are missing a vital point about this new medium. The main thing that sets it apart from the old media is not so much the increased accessibility of information that it affords, although that is assuredly an important feature, but the fact that information flows both ways on the Net. I infer this from the fact that Slate does not provide an easy means for its readers to communicate with the staff of their publication. Until this is understood, Slate will remain a relic of the old media that has been transplanted to the Net -- a sort of museum piece, in other words.
The old media provide a nice forum for a few privileged elitists to expound their shallow, self-serving propaganda to their loosely educated readers, few of whom appear to have attained the use of reason -- and no back-sass, please; we, the elite, know what's best for you to know. As one who has surfed the Net for more than five years, I can tell you from hard experience that your arguments just wouldn't cut it in the newsgroups -- they would be chewed up and spat out in no time at all -- if you had the guts to commit them to such a forum for open discussion.
There is a new day dawning for freedom of speech in our society, thanks to recent advances in information technology. People are learning once more to do their own thinking. If the trend continues who knows where it could lead? Democracy might even break out. Don't fight it -- get used to it.