MEDIArnReturn of thernAlehousernby Jesse WalkerrnWe are, they say, entering an age ofrnNew Media, of talk radio, desktoprnpublishing, and the World WidernWeb. Not everyone in the old media isrnpleased. “The new media cater to andrnare built up by people who used to sit onrnbar stools and complain to each other,”rndeclared NBC correspondent Gwen Ifillrnin 1994. “Now they can dial an 800rnnumber and complain for free.” Ifillrnspeaks for a lot of her colleagues. She’srnalso more right than she realizes. Thern”new” media are directly descendedrnfrom the original media of taverns, bars,rnand cafes; of songs and rumors, graffitirnand wall posters, broadsheets and fliers.rnIn July 1646, an Ifillesque British preacherrnwarned Parliament that alehousesrnwere “the meeting places of malignantsrnand sectaries.” Naturally, the governmentrnperiodically cracked down on unlicensedrntaverns.rnWe still have bars, and they still transmitrninformation. (It is often said that thernvirtue of the Drudge Report, MattrnDrudge’s controversial on-line publication,rnis that it allows Americans outsidernthe Beltway to find out what Washingtonrnjournalists are gossiping about in theirrnfashionable D.C. watering holes.) Butrnwe also have mass media—a tight web ofrnTV networks, newspaper chains, andrnmass-market magazines that togetherrnconstitute “the press.” And frankly,rnit’s overshadowed the old order of tavernsrnand fliers. This century has professionalizedrnjournalism, erecting walls betweenrnReal Reporters and Everyone Else. RealrnReporting occurs only in certain placesrn(even if Matt Drudge deserved arnPulitzer, he’d never get one) and includesrnonly certain kinds of journalismrn(Hunter Thompson won’t get one either).rnIt rests on a professional code, too,rnexcluding certain behaviors and makingrnit possible to suspend or expel transgressorsrnfrom the priesthood.rnThe advantage to all this is that itrnkeeps out a lot of inaccurate, biased, orrnotherwise discreditable reporting. Therndisadvantage is that it also allows a lot ofrninaccurate, biased, or otherwise discreditablernreporting, as long as it conforms tornthe myths and biases the profession holdsrndear. (Objectivit}’ may be a worthy goal,rnbut objective language can cloak a lot ofrnideological assumptions.) Furthermore,rnit excludes a lot of worthy material, turningrnaway pieces in which the author mixesrnhis opinions too liberally with his datarnor expresses himself in language unshackledrnfrom the profession’s cliches.rnThe new media combine the raucousnessrnof the tavern with the reach of thernpress; they contain everything the oldrnmedia do not. They pursue stories thernNew York Times won’t touch —and theyrnget more of them wrong. They allowrnmore good writing—and more writingrnthat’s bad. They are more honest aboutrntheir biases —and more biased, period.rnThey are improfessional in every sense ofrnthe word. And they’re growing.rnThe Internet. The Net is the new media’srnnervous system, the place wherernanyone who wants can be a writer, editor,rnand publisher. It was originally arnPentagon project, a communication systemrndesigned to keep functioning in arnnuclear war: one site could go down, butrnthe system would survive. Over thernyears, as the network spread to more sitesrnand computers became cheaper and easierrnto use, its original purpose was lost, orrnburied. The best metaphor for what happenedrnmay be a Third World land invasion,rnin which the propertyless poor descendrnen masse upon unused territoryrnand claim it as their own —except thatrnwhat happened to the Net was far morerngradual and far less intentional. Soon,rnlarge portions of the Internet weren’trneven part of the old government infrastructure:rnindependent commercial networksrnemerged, like illicit add-ons to arnhouse, allowing entrepreneurs to bypassrnold restrictions on on-line commerce.rnSince 1995, all Net traffic has gonernthrough private channels.rnNow we can subscribe to publicationsrnthat exist only on e-mail or the WorldrnWide Web. Or we can take part in discussionrnlists, some private and somernopen to all, on obscure academic subjects,rnpolitical ideas of the “kook” left andrnright, or simple hobbies and fan passions.rnThere’s more garbage on the Net thanrnwords can express —for proof, visit anyrn”chatroom”—but there’s also a tremendousrnamount of interesting independentrnwriting, a renaissance of pamphleteering.rnThe Internet is dispersed, decentralized,rnand participator)’, everything CBSrnand the New York Times are not.rnAll this is well-known. Indeed, one ofrnthe few things as aggravating as anti-Netrncant is pro-Net cant, the mindless boosterismrnof certain on-line enthusiasts.rnSome strike a populist note, such as formerrnGrateful Dead lyricist John PerryrnBarlow (who insists on describing the offlinernworld as “Terrestrial,” as though thernWeb existed on Saturn) and GeorgernGilder (who prefers mystical metaphorsrnto Barlow’s science fiction). They seernthe Net as qualitatively different fromrnalehouses, as a new sort of network that’srnimpossible to regulate, censor, or suppress.rnThey’re wrong, of course: the Internetrnmay be resilient, but it’s far fromrntamper-proofrnBut at least their hearts are in the rightrnplace. Worse yet are those who exalt thernNet but downplay the potential it offersrnfor do-it-yourself culture. Even now,rnmany media accounts of the NetworkedrnWorld To Come expect the early stormrnof personal websites and independent emailrnlists to subside, making way for arnmore controlled ethos of organized chatrooms,rnbig commercial services, andrnmovies on demand.rnWhen Internet hvpe meets Internetrnhysteria, that’s the vision that emerges.rnThe Net is powerful, we learn, but dangerous.rnIt’s an amazing tool that we mustrnkeep away from the militiamen andrnpornographers. Let it thrive, but underrnthe careful guidance of the governmentrnand responsible businesses. Don’t let itrnbecome a damn alehouselrnRadio. Unfortunately, most discussionrnof talk radio has focused on RushrnLimbaugh and his imitators. That crowdrnhas certainly had a strong political impact,rnfueling the Republican victories ofrn1994 and helping slay the Clintons’rnhealth-care reforms. But while certainlyrnimportant, such nationwide, celebritydrivenrnprogramming isn’t nearly as participatoryrnas the local shows that makernup the meat of talk radio. Limbaugh is asrnmuch a part of the media establishmentrnas the liberals he criticizes, even if hernrepresents a brasher, more conservativernwing of that elite.rnLocal shows vary widely in quality andrnideological spin, but they have severalrnthings working for them that the nationalrnshows do not. They have a smaller audience,rnmaking it easier for listeners tornget on the air and, thus, for dissentingrnvoices to be heard. They can tackle arn46/CHRONICLESrnrnrn