Thoughtful observations on how the Internet is changing some of the techniques used to influence public opinion, from Sheldon Rampton of the Center for Media and Democracy. The author notes that while some of the rules have changed, others have not; as he sees it, "institutions with wealth and power will continue to do so."

Interesting story. The author tends to class virtually all news as "propaganda", by which he means political slant with which he does not agree. He quotes Noam Chomsky heavily. I cannot say I agree with much in the story, but it is an interesting read. It is not what I think of as "journalism", writing about who,what,where,and when, it's more of an essay on the nature of propaganda.

It is good journalism because it explores the many facets of the forces emanating from e-journalism.

Rampton gives away the story when he mentions his experience and then embraces with no apparent caveats the Herman/Chomsky theory. Evidently, propaganda consists of passing information Rampton and/or Herman/Chomsky either don't like, don't agree with, or don't think is presented the way they would like. It is thus totally unobvious what any of them think would work better. Possibly world-wide versions of Pravda and Izvestia.