Corporate media blogs only serve to stymie dissent

Corporate newsmedia could not possibly be nearly as effective as it is in misleading public opinion, if it were not for the lameness of most supposedly critical alternative viewpoints. The lack of contrast between the so-called 'alternative media' views and those promulgated by the mainstream press means that normally critical-minded people are not able to see the corporate media to be as malevolent as it is. In the past many alternative left-wing groups challenged vested interests far more effectively than they do today. Today the alternative media, without any exception that I can bring to mind, are so lame that it is hard to not wonder if they have been deliberately made so by people in control of them. The language style of the 'alternative media' seems to convey anger and indignation at injustice. Since they never offer practical solutions for ordinary people, however, the only people they can hope to influence are those small minorities on the 'far-left'. The 'far-left', even where it appears to genuinely believe in its own stated goals, acts as if it is resigned to remaining marginal and unable to positively influence the course of events and quality of life of all but a few token representatives of the most marginalised, such as 'boat people' asylum seekers, for instance. This is not said to detract from the cause of asylum seekers, but to point out how inneffectual the far-left seems to prefer to remain in almost every other cause. It would be a mistake to quietly accept censorship by corporate or government newsmedia. I agree that most letter-writing to newspapers is a waste of time, considering the amount of work and number of efforts required to crack publication. With regard to corporate newsmedia's electronic blogs including spaces made available for critical feedback, in some of these cases, publication is near to guaranteed. Where publication is likely, I see no reason not to use them. There is however every reason to send the same comments to candobetter as well. If the corporate newsmedia also publishes them, then the message, insofar as it counterbalances corporate disinformation, will have been even more effectively made. If not, then at least readers of candobetter will be able to appreciate candobetter's value even more. Whatever, we must not allow the corporate media to quietly get away with censoring critical opinion in their publications, when they choose to do so (as the ABC now openly seems to). Where the corporate and public media are shown to be afraid to allow critical opinions to be published, then many of the public will most likely ask themselves why they fear critical views but sites like candobetter do not.