Slashdot Mirror


Disinformation.com

Sure, we are being lied to by bloated, corporatized media all the time. What else is new? The great promise of the Net and Web has always been more truth: a great, hyper-linked network of diverse, individual expression, a vast, linked alternative subculture. There is hope. You can go to the Disinformation Web Site to see that idea in action, despite the AOL-ing and MSN-ing of cyberspace. This trove -- its content ranges from "The X-Men" and "Space Mutation" to "The Matrix" to pieces on the Real Jesus and Radiohead -- is what the Web is really about. It offers perspectives you definitely won't find anywhere in the mass media. Don't miss Marty Beckerman's "Death to all Cheerleaders 1." (Marty, whose piece became a book, was canned from a daily newspaper for observing that cheerleaders were "a urine stain on the toilet seat of America.")

The site's left-of-center-pieces -- with generous links to other POVs -- vary wildly in quality and usefulness, but you can find some real gems on disinfo.com. Taken together, the stories on this important, possibly even landmark site are a sharp indictment of the humorless and tepid way the popular media screen out opinion and commentary that's different, provocative or original.

We know too well that most mainstream media -- TV networks, major newspapers and newsmagazines, commercial news web sites -- have been corporatized, homogenized and mass-marketed by profit-obsessed corporate execs from Disney and General Electric. They could as well be -- and simultaneously are -- selling them park tickets and light bulbs as ideas and opinions. Newspapers have grown stupefyingly boring, their commentary relegated to snoozy op-ed pages. Cable TV, once the great hope, is becoming a nightmare of fragmentation, eternal argument and dogmatic fanaticism. Except for slight variations -- Fox News' interesting right-wing tilt, for example -- most mainstream news organizations stock to a militantly moderate point of view, veering a wee bit to the right or a tad to the left but never much further.

The target audience of most major media, from your daily paper to Time and CNN, is the appliance-and-car acquiring middle class, who seem to like their politics tepid and lite, the way AOL users like their Net. With media so firmly in the grip of market research, it's tough to know what they might cover if they were left to their own imaginations.

"Disinformation" is, to say the least, different. It was launched in l996 by Richard Metzger, now edited by Alex Burns. It's arguably one of the best-designed and most interesting alternative news and underground culture sites online. Apart from its own content, the site provides a subculture search engine which directs a reader to sites and relevant links. The site's political bias is clearly leftish, but its links are refreshingly open-minded, incorporating ideas, opinions and responses far beyond traditional definitions of "progressive." In fact, Disinformation is really, in many ways, a dogma killer. Despite the editors' viewpoint, readers get drawn into all sorts of opinions and debates any time they pursue a story or essay.

Apart from the excitement generated by a website that circulates about alternative ideas -- ideas the Net helps to keep alive -- Disinformation is beautifully designed. There's a Disinformation store, of course, offering T-shirts and books. There's easy access to stories by popularity and topic -- from activism and aliens to media, mind control, spirituality and technology. For all the ballyhoo and media hype about sites like Slate, with its heavy Microsoft subsidy, Disinformation really seems to get the fusion between interactivity and ideas. It's an exciting place to browse.

From the beginning, the Net was meant to open up information and give voice to different kinds of people and points of view. The Web, with its hyperlinking, took that idea still further. But in the past few years, that notion seems to have grown tired, in between the copyright wars, the dot.com era and the so-called Net slump. It seemed that corporate America -- Yahoo, MSN and AOL -- was devouring the Web whole. That's why sites like Disinformation are so important. They are the real heart of the Web.

9 of 356 comments (clear)

  1. disinfo.com is nice, but... by MadFarmAnimalz · · Score: 5, Informative

    I personally prefer www.fair.org. Disinfo, while interesting, are oftentimes too radical for my taste. It almost seems like they go out of their way to fabricat-err, uncover conspiracy in the name of "no smoke without a fire".

    fair.org is more a kind of media watchdog. I like their work. You might too.

    --
    Blearf. Blearf, I say.
    1. Re:disinfo.com is nice, but... by nyhan · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you want non-partisan scrutiny of the media and politics, check out Spinsanity, a watchdog of manipulative political rhetoric from both sides. [Disclosure: I co-edit the site.]

      Katz is right that the Internet is making it possible for people outside the mediasphere to scrutinize the media and culture, but he should look more in the direction of the political weblogs. Beyond the celebrity journalist bloggers, there's a new breed of critics coming up and having an impact. Will Vehrs' Punditwatch just got picked up on FoxNews.com, and we just signed a distribution agreement with Salon.com. Both are unimaginable without the Internet.

    2. Re:disinfo.com is nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's because leftists aren't in the majority. Sorry, bucko.

    3. Re:disinfo.com is nice, but... by bryan1945 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "With the exception, of course, of FOX and Rush Limbaugh, which push a right-leaning, technophobic police state with slightly differently oppressive taxation to pay for government handouts to major corporations and tobacco farmers."

      WTF? Yes FoxNews and Rush are Conservatives, but I wouldn't call them mainstream as NBC, ABC, or CBS beats them out in ratings. Yes, Rush has a large radio audience, but it's pretty much accepted that TV is the medium of choice now. "slightly differently oppressive taxation"? Does this even mean anything? Does this mean I will go tax toads, or something? A little clearer, please.

      "And remember, one side wants access to abortion facilities, the other side wants access to firearms. "

      How in the hell can you compare these 2 issues? 1 is in the Bill of Rights, the other was declared legal by the Supreme Court. And you make it seem like the issues are mutually exclusive, when they have nothing to do with each other.

      "I like politics, but man, I start to see the hypocritical crap both "sides" are throwing around, and it gets me grumpy."

      As oppposed to your crap, which makes no sense, has no connection to what you are trying to complain about, and in the end you are grumpy why? Because you don't even understand what they are talking about? Just go and re-read you paragraph about "1 side wants abortion and 1 side wants guns" and think about it for a while- I have never heard a dumber comparison of ideas.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  2. If you liked Disinfo, try these-- by schmaltz · · Score: 2, Informative

    Adbusters.com
    Indymedia.org
    WhatReallyHappened.c om

    All interesting media, culture, and commerce critique websites.

    For the life of me, I can't understand why Jon Katz would've posted Disinfo, but dog bless him anyway.

    --
    Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma ... where's Siggy?
  3. Indymedia and WRH are crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Indymedia is full of cooked-up conspiracy theories, anti-Semitic bullshit, and hate-America-first screeds. I've never seen a single bit of useful info there, although they do a great job of highlighting lies like the CNN-fake-Palestinians crap. It's all extremism, support for criminals and murderers, and extreme-left ranting. Forget about it.

    WRH is another anti-Semitic junk site that would blame everything on the Mossad and "international bankers" if they could. Not a single useful reference to be found.

  4. After checking out the site... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative


    I went and read "Death to all cheerleaders," and
    it's utter garbage.

    I'm sick of this type of satire. It's not necessarily funny or interesting to try to make people look dumb, especially when you're willing to make yourself look dumb to do so. Think Tom Greene. Think "The Daily Show." The death to cheerleaders could be a transcript of a Daily Show interview, it's that unoriginal.

    It's easy to make fun of stuff. It's also pointless and boring unless there is some genuine insight to it.

  5. Two words ... by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 2, Informative
    adequacy.org.

    Their articles are so well written that many people actually take them seriously. Unfortunately, I can't compare it to disinfo at the moment, because it (disinfo) seems to have been slashdotted.

    --
    Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
  6. Death to All Cheerleaders by banuaba · · Score: 5, Informative

    As someone who observed Beckerman's firing from the ADN (Anchorage Daily News) first hand, I must disagree with Katz's statement that he was fired for calling cheerleaders "a urine stain..." That piece passed the scrutiny that the editors desk gave all of the younger writers (the ADN had a number of reporters under the age of 18. they would write a weekly feature (sort of like a kid's page, but a little better) and if they were good, as beckerman was, some of them would get offered columns, usually on mondays)
    Beckerman was fired because he was a rude little bastard. He'd badmouth his bosses infront of god 'n everybody, he was rude to the copy editors, he would miss deadlines. He was just a bad employee, and using his death to cheerleaders piece as an excuse for why he was fired is just a ploy.

    --


    Brant

    Argle. Bargle.