January 07, 2008 ... Substitute.

It is a virtue of the free market that any attempt to establish a monopoly in order to impede one’s competitors is open to counter attack from substitute remedies. In the case of transcontinental transport, wagon trains and river transport gave way to railroads, which, in turn, gave way to the interstate highway and aircraft.

In the case of limiting news coverage and presidential candidate debates, like Fox News is endeavouring to do, in order to sideline opinion which is counter to the agendas and interests of its owners, the internet has enabled Fox’s policy of exclusion to be circumvented with the added bonus that anyone interested enough can access the excluded alternative pretty much from anywhere in the world, at any time of day or night, as often as desired and be able to invite others who may be interested, as they would with any other internet-based social network. Chiefly this is represented by, but not exclusively by, YouTube.

Prior to this contemporary phenomenon, the electorate were limited to a similar situation which arose with the rise of MTV satellite broadcasting in the 1980s for music airplay of established and aspiring artists. Instead of being able to utilise a network of thousands of small AM Radio stations, credibility was reduced to whether or not an artist was featured on the one and only MTV. And so, as with MTV, the premise developed that unless a politician was granted airtime by Fox News, they must be of a sub-standard quality, and should be dismissed without further consideration.

Fox News is a private company and is not obliged to grant airtime to those whose interests are considered counter to its policies, even though such exclusions may be considered morally questionable within the context of the ethics which are understood to apply to the News. Even the BBC--touted as the international bench mark of bench marks, and unfettered by private ownership considerations--is not immune from similar criticism of bias in favour of the propaganda it wishes to propagate.

This alternative can only be taken away by government in consort with favoured business interests. Which is why impending legislation, such as Levi-Prodi, as a counter terrorism measure, must be defeated, if the internet is to remain the substitute it currently is beyond uses deemed politically acceptable.