[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The insta-publishing of video, text, etc that has occurred during the
> > Clinton fiasco could just be the tip of the iceberg. Though I haven't really
> > analyzed it, my bet is that the quick publishing ability that the net
> > provides has played a big role in the sublime reasons behind why some of
> > this stuff was published at all. Traditional media and policy makers are
>
> No. The reason it was published was because
>
> 1. pertains to the business of the nation
> 2. it was news
> 3. it was a FEDERAL copyright free item
>
> This pertains directly to our right to be informed about what is
> happening in our government, so as to enable us to inform our elected
> representatives of what we want. Hence, they more or less had to release
> it sooner or later.
Later would be more appropriate. Two simple points:
1. It's part of an on-going legal investigation. Congress can rant all
they want about how we're the "jury" and have a right to know, but if
they really cared about that, 66% of the people wanting them to move on
and 80% of them wanting campaign reform would get action equal to the
lip service offered.
2. The information, or lack thereof, on Whitewater, Filegate and the
other 47 things Starr is "investigating" are equally news and
newsworthy. They simply don't make the ruling party look good, though.
And that's the core issue here.
Still think it'll bite them in the butt--Congress is getting some harsh
lessons in how the net works this week.
Brett
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
