Mr. Siegel's thoughts on reader comments are quite valuable as a historical curiosity. Much like the buggywhip-maker's thoughts on the automobile.

-- MrJM

I love the statement about the new hierarchy. The loud and aggressive voices have been trying to drown out the introspective voices for a very long time.
I hope someday pride will fall, and the introspective voices will be heard.

When Lee Siegel speaks derisively that people on the net are just appealing to base impulses, does he have in mind The New Republic's or The New York Times's or NPR's base appeal to anti-Arab, anti-Muslim bigotry in the Bush race to war?

When he mocks commenters or bloggers saying none read them, how many read the NYT's letters (after the Times has edited out those critical of the paper)? These days, hpw many read The New Republic at all? How many read the first paragraph of a Post story and nothing more?

I see almost no difference between the net and traditional media. When the 'great' Times or CNN or NPR have wanted to circumvent truth, they have done so. They grant anonynmity to government liars to further crimes against humanity and when revealed as agents of those lies, they lie again. The fact is we would still be in the dark about the revelations released by Wikileaks if it had been up to the Times or NPR.

My view regarding the mainstream, conventional hysteria over the net is that the traditionally powerful are upset over having their power challenged -- just as power was upset by the Levellers in 17th century Britain, or later by the Federalis and anti-Federalist authors in the new United States as it drafted a Constitution, and on and on.