Too many journalists seem to get upset at the public opinion making abilities of the internet. The Washington Post's Business section posts one such screed today . The internet is only following the market dynamic of segmentation. This naturally stems from commodification - and the internet is the ultimate form of commodity publishing.

From the article by Frank Ahrens;

Thursday was a bad day for critical thought. It was amazing, frankly, how quickly some bloggers were ready to believe that Wal-Mart linked its "Planet of the Apes" DVDs to black-themed DVD titles on purpose. Aside from kiddie porn and e-mail scams, this is perhaps the most troubling trait of the Internet: Rather than opening minds, it can close them, thanks to echo-chamber Web sites and blogs.

Which, coincidentally, works on the same premise as retail-site mapping. We like to read Web sites and blogs that we agree with and that reinforce our opinions. Aside from the few of you who practice "know your enemy" browsing, how many of you liberals read http://www.nationalreview.com/? How many of you conservatives frequent http://www.thenation.com/?

The internet represents the ultimate in commodification of publishing. Anyone with an internet connection, for zero cost, can publish to the same audience as the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Sydney Morning Herald or The Australian. The hard part is gaining an audience and keeping them. Eyeballs are the point of scarcity in internet publishing. Segmentation is one way to develop and retain an audience. We often think of these sites as spear-chucking or echo-chambers. But that does not deny that it is a valid marketing strategy to expand an audience while retaining the existing readers.

But how is this different from mass media? In the US cable television commoditised the publishing of television programs. The television stations responded by segmenting their media. For instance, the cable channels are ESPN which is sport only, CNN which is 24 hour news, the Action Channel which only shows action movies, and of course Fox News. The latter only showing cheerleading for the American Republican party.

Any industry which faces commodification will segment its content in order to appeal to a base audience that can be relied upon to remain with them. The internet is just responding to market and human dynamics. Frank Ahrens might wish for a media that has such high barriers of entry, that only an editorial priesthood can determine what is public opinion and what is not. We tried that over the last fifty years, and it is being blown out of the water by the commodified and decentralised form of internet media.

Ahrens also assumes that we are helpless in the face of echo-chambers, and will only inhabit the areas that make us happy. This assumes all humanity is inherently biased to the point of irrationality. Which is not true. There are more good sites publishing quality media than there are spear-chucking sites. The echo-chambers just tend to be louder and noisier about it.

Ahrens misses.