000ooo000ooo Chomsky

I found Herman and Chomsky's essay to be kind of refreshing because I could actually understand what they were talking about all the way through it. It was also good to brush up on some of the basic CMC ideas. Reading this article I began to wonder what could possibly be done to change the situation. When the government, the media, and corporations are all in on the same system, it is going to be incredibly difficult to challenge or take down this system. However, I think the internet could pose a major challenge to the current system. The internet offers a way for each of Herman and Chomsky's five filters to be avoided.
First, through Jenkins we have seen how participatory fan communities can put control of information into the hands of the public and we have seen the internet's ability to break down spacial barriers and connect people from all over the world. This would help break through the first filter, "Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation of the Mass Media". The size of the media makes it nearly impossible for new media outlets to compete with the well-established ones. It costs so much to start up a newspaper, TV station, or or radio station that only the elite can afford to do this. However, it is virtually free to post a video online. Additionally, it costs a lot of money for one outlet to cover stories from all over the world. Using the internet, a bunch of different people from all over the world could contribute to a single outlet and none of them would have to worry about anything but "local" news, which is much cheaper and easier to cover. Also, "profit orientation" would not be an issue because corporations and stockholders would not be involved.
"The Advertising License to do Business" would not effect this kind of internet based news because costs would be so low and advertising works differently on the internet than on TV. Costs would be low because people would just be covering pseudo-local news for themselves, you wouldn't have to pay celebrities like Dan Rather or Katie Couric, and the only technology people would have to invest in is a camera and a computer - both relatively cheap technologies today. Additionally, without the need for major advertising, reporters would not have to worry about upsetting sponsors.
"Sourcing Mass Media News" could be an issue because it would be difficult for individuals to get access to the same first hand information as other large news sources but these other sources publish what the sources say so it is easy enough just to see what is reported and then look more in-depth into that.
"Flak and the Enforcers" would probably still exist but if a media is not dependent on the approval of corporations and the government then this kind of "flak" cannot do much. Even lawsuits would be risky for corporations to carry out because they would simply draw more attention to the charges made against them.
Finally, I do not think that anti-communism is still much of an issue because the Soviet Union has collapsed since this essay was written and it is rare to ever hear people talking about communism anymore.
Although I see a lot of promise in the internet, it also seems that the hegemonic system we have in place is capable of commodifying and swallowing up just about any threat that it sees. I'm sure that as soon as a viable alternative to mass media news springs up some corporation will buy it out or find a way to overshadow it and its effects will be marginalized.