Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Bill Wexler's Dog Pound -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BDR who wrote (6132)	1/16/2000 9:44:00 AM
From: Dale Baker	Respond to of 10293

Here is an analogy from journalism. Traditional journalism says that mass media information should go through trained editors at reputable media outlets. They know what meets contemporary journalistic standards, they push their journalists to get all sides of the story and the information is presented in a professional manner. The flip side is that big media outlets control most of the information the average person sees and make a profit from the advertising they attract (advertisers who only pay for space there because of the near monopoly on information flow that the mainstream journalists control). The Internet flips all that on its head. Anyone can "publish" material for a mass audience. Standards may slip but the information is out there for anyone who wants it. I write a column for a tiny little financial Web site that pays me in shares that may or may not be worth something one day. But someone who doesn't know me or TigerInvestor may give my views the same credence as someone in Barrons today. Today the powers that be in traditional financial circles say that Internet business models and stock valuations make no sense and cannot possibly last. The fact that this phenomenon undermines their monopoly on financial management and information is left unsaid for obvious reasons. And the fact that the phenomenon keeps growing and surviving year after year just drives them over the edge (a lot like rock n' roll in the early days). Here's the point - just because all the experts say that one code of rules and standards must be followed (the mean the market is supposed to regress to) doesn't mean that a truly disruptive force can't come along and turn the whole game on its head for good. A lot of social change came from movements that were NEVER supposed to happen (according to the experts and powers that be from that era)- like women and non-whites getting to vote. The only defense for the traditional argument is "it's always been that way and must always be that way." Maybe not.