The independent press at present is nonexistent for practical purposes. There are only a small group of publishers working in this area, and an even smaller group of individuals seeking out the materials being produced.   Unfortunately, and as a direct result of the "official" status given the corporate presses, people producing and reading independent publications are given the status of hobbyists, at best.  At worst they are unromanticized, misaligned outcasts, radicals, and nonconformists.  Even to be given the status of a hobbyist, people interested have to know that the publications exist, feel as if they can benefit from the contents, and actually find them. Because they are not adequately marketed relative to the corporate publishing industry, all too often vital information does not reach those whose lives might be enriched or improved by these messages.  As Doheny-Farina suggests, this information might lead to organization, cooperation, and the adoption of sensible, utilitarian social and economic policy.

     The fact that anyone publishes any kind of content means very little unless we look at where they publish it, and how much credibility they are given for their efforts.  Foucault was quite fond of reminding us of this.  If pertinent, published works are to get into the right hands where they can have influence and impact, any consideration of the quality of the ideas is prima facie secondary to access and distribution.  The Internet will certainly change--or at least add to--the possible ways in which information can be distributed, purportedly making it easier to distribute.  But the problems with targeting and marketing online are serious and have yet to be surmounted.

Current State of Online Publishing.

Where the Independents Stand.

     The current relationship between heavily invested, corporate publishers and independents is one of almost total domination on the part of the corporations.  If the small publications can’t make money, it would seem that there is no way for the small publisher to succeed, at least in business.  And, if there is going to be a David and Goliath story here, at least in the short term, it will depend on attention grabbing and distribution—in short, marketing—online.   Of all the frustrations faced by independent publishers, whether in print or electronically, this is the worst, because any potential to succeed depends directly on marketing and distribution.  And, as we have seen, there are no working models for success in these areas electronically, nor is success likely in print without money and other resources, like a talented committed staff, possibly willing to volunteer their labor.

    Perhaps the biggest overarching obstacle to the small publisher is the sheer marketing power of the large presses and the ideology the represent and reinforce.  People generally only seek out and read information they think they need to read, or are told to read, for whatever reason.  What seems adequate for most people is to read the books given to them in school, and to accept the "unbiased" news coverage they are accustomed to at face value. No matter what the computer is capable of distributing, and where it can reach, I cannot imagine anyone who will ever be confronted with all the ideas and information in the world, much less all the ways of packaging, nuancing, or presenting these ideas.  How much difference would it make if somehow people were inundated with this much information?   Would they still read the Bible, or Reader’s Digest, or the NCTE’s latest recommendations?  If they thought they needed to, they would read these things, and it is why they think they need this information that is the crucial issue, not that "everything" is available.

     Most people in the world feel they need to read only some certain combination of materials to be professionally competent, or well-informed.   The idea here is that all of this depends on context and perceived need.    Without the perceived need for independently published works, these works will not be sought out.  Can the Internet, presuming--as I do--that it soon becomes heavily influenced and dominated by corporate interests, help create the perceived need for an alternative to what most people are already quite satisfied with?   I don't think so, although I would be very interested to know how.  I simply don't see how electronic communications will have much effect on what people will accept as being valid.  People will go on accepting the easy, often deceptive, "truths" that are handed to them in the media, simply because most people do not, and will not question the authority of  dominant sources of information.

     It is my informed opinion that it is the ideologies in people heads that need to change before we will see an increased perceived value for independent publishing, diversity, and participatory democracy.  No change in ideology equals no change in the production and reception of new and progressive ideas.

    And this relates directly to my suspicion of the "radical democratization" of information.  Let's face it, even if we all start publishing, it is very unlikely that the average suburbanite's web documents will look and feel very much different than their thousands of identical neighbors.  They like everything to be the same. And because the Internet and its contents will be heavily marketed, by and large people will use the technology the way they are told to use it.  As a result, diversity on the Internet will very likely mirror the extent to which we see diversity in society at present.  That which is heavily marketed over the Internet will be the most prominent, and that which is not will be relegated to the margins--just as in print publishing, or in what kind of running shoes or sunglasses to wear.  This is an "off the rack" society, not a custom tailored society.   It takes a tremendous amount of effort to pursue interests which are not readily available in the marketplace of goods, services and ideas.  Who will expend this type of energy?  Only those deeply committed it.   And who creates this material in the first place, against such tremendous odds?

     In our society,  most people create nothing at all of any far-reaching political or social value, they simply consume that which is easiest or most appealing to acquire.  And, most unfortunately, the ever-increasing polarization between rich and poor increases the likelihood that, in the near future, fewer and fewer people will be able to afford, or even identify their needs, beyond basic food, clothing, and shelter--not mention the mounting crisis in affordable health care.  For many people, the simple preoccupation with these needs is the tightest social and political blindfold imaginable.   And, of course, this reality is getting worse and worse.  As I suggested at the head of this concluding section, as a society we are simply not concerned with addressing the most serious problems we face, preferring instead to believe that there is "nothing we can do."  How did we come to believe that we are so helpless?   Well, because we have been told that we are.  The validity of these sorts of edicts are what we all should, collectively, be questioning.

Final Thoughts.

     The power of marketing and controlling the presenting and content of information is the greatest and most far-reaching power that we can wield over one another. Hitler knew this.  All politicians know this, and all the public relations firms retained by politicians and corporations know this intimately.  This lies at the root of why the investment in communications technology is so incredibly high.   The move to electronic publishing is not the result of an innate perception on the part of the public of a need for this sort of transition.   It is being sold to the public by those that can profit from it, and their motives of control and domination are clear.

     The analogy between marketing and marksmanship need not be articulated in great detail here, but consider that there are billion-dollar guided missile systems designed to deliver material "A" to point "B" with accuracy that reaches to the limits of present human ability.  There are also amateur dart players at the corner bar.  Both have a claim to sport, and their technologies are like any technologies, essentially extensions of the human mind, or will. One targeting system has a distinct prominence, and an obvious set of technological and economic advantages.  But, a well-thrown dart can still be very effective.  And that is, basically, the relationship between independent publishing and culturally dominant, corporate publishing.  The darts still need to be thrown, and if we increasingly get our information electronically, then the independent publisher will need to reckon with this new force and put their insights and ideas on the web.  Already nearly completely outcompeted in the political and social landscape, the small publisher cannot survive the change unless they choose to be an integral part of it.  But these are dangerous times for people with different opinions.

     Exercising your right to free speech looks very different when you have hundreds of millions of dollars worth of lawyers and political lobbying on your side.  The rights handed to a corporation to deceive and steal and cheat and rob and exploit and price-fix are far different than my rights to complain that this might be unfair.

    In today's litigious society, it is a dangerous and intimidating world for many independent publishers without formal training in the intricacies of the laws regarding libel, slander, copyright infringement, and so on.  These laws are exploited constantly by those in power--many times in a direct effort to conceal and distort their true motives and activities.  The threat of being sued hovers in the air constantly.  Even if there is no real threat, the idea of it is stifling and forces those with valuable opinions into self-censorship.  Saying that Walt Disney or Microsoft is attempting to create an illegal monopoly over an area of commercial enterprise is one thing, and defending that statement against a potential lawsuit that the writer and publisher has no chance of possibly winning or defending themselves against is quite another.  And so it goes.  If you're planning on being brave in this timid new world, you'd better have a lawyer handy.

      So, where does all of this leave us in terms of independent publishing in an electronic environment?

As quoted in the Knowledge and Authority section. Espen Aarseth argues, borrowing from Foucault, that "Authorship depends on a recognition of authorship; it is a social category and not a technological one."

     This idea—that not all ideas are valued and weighted the same in any given society--is essential to a discussion of less theoretical, straightforward, day to day realities of independent electronic and print publishing as it now exists.  Essential because it is not likely to go away, no matter what communications media we have available.  Like it or not, all ideas have to compete for prominence in a world where certain very damaging beliefs are already ingrained, for example the belief that "nothing can be done."

     I have made the assumption that people will read only what appeals to them, what they perceive a need for, and what is available to them, regardless of whether the information is digitized or not. Can digitization and electronic distribution convince more people to read independently published works, and to begin to understand and value unfamiliar thoughts and ideas?  Certainly not on its own.  Something more like a shift in ideologies and a greatly increased sense of what political scientists call "political efficacy"--the feeling that a person's opinion counts in the public and political sphere--will be needed to affect any such change.  This is a matter of real people making collective decisions about their future, not a matter of throwing ideas haphazardly into a mythical "cyberspace."

     The overall spirit of independent publishing is one of inclusion, freethinking, enlivened debate, democracy, and diversity.  The biggest question that remains for independent publishers in an electronic realm, or any other,   is acceptance and understanding of these concepts.  I believe the schools could be instrumental in affecting this change, but that is another story entirely....

     I depart with the following thoughts:    

     Imagine a world where nearly everything is online, and, if we can afford to, we never really have to leave our houses for much.  This is a fantasy that has been marketed to people really since the late1940's.  Automation, more leisure time, etc.  Working at home, shopping at home.  Even if this were possible, what would become of civil society--indeed the entire physical infrastructure in which we lead our lives today?  Does anybody really want to live that way?  Why do we dream of this? 

     Recently, the affluent have embarked upon an inconspicuous mission of insulation themselves from a society that they must somehow feel is vulgar and threatening.   Those that can afford to are increasing security in all aspects of their lives, from Cadillac and Lexus SUV’s, to gated, high security communities placed right in the center of established neighborhoods in cities across the country.  Will these few at the top increasingly prefer using the computer to shop, get news and communicate with others?   I believe they will.  It is easy for them to ignore the problems faced by others.  And this may work for them, but the rest of us--the "riff-raff," the poor, the disenfranchised, the independent publishers, activists, and would-be reformers, have to go on living outside the bronze gates and carry on accepting the threats of an increasingly hostile and polarized world.  A subtle sort of antagonism is taking place when the guy on the corner washing windshields so he can eat cannot reach the windshield on a $50,000 Land Rover.

       What will the computer really do for us?   What will we, as an increasingly unequal, fragmented, and isolated society really do with the computer to help ourselves out of the bind we are in?