How to escape the world portrayed in this movie, and others like it.

I am going to begin this message one step removed from the mass media: with the law makers. Why do we have them? Why have a Congress or a Parliament or a legislature - whatever form it may take? Is it not the reason that we have such institutions because the actions of any one of us impacts on those 'around us'? Isn't there a need to manage society? How else can we do it? Perhaps by direct voting on each common-interest issue. That, however is impractical in any large, widely distributed population. So... we elect representatives. People to re - present constituent views (a high honour indeed).

Okay, we have a law making body, as well as other institutions e.g. courts to manage those laws. We then need a mechanism by which there can be communication i.e. between law makers, courts etc. and the population at large. This is where the media fills a role.

I take a step back at this time to make a few observations.

- With the internet, it is easier for individuals or small groups to serve as a conduit of information;
- There is still, however, a need for specialisation. Experienced journalists can find information that novices would be unlikely to. Quality journalism also requires time. Time to observe and to research; and
- By and large, centralised political power goes hand-in-hand with the presence of mega media companies. Politicians can get their message out - and know it has reached more people than would be the case in a splintered media landscape. On the "flipside", the existence of centralised political power means that media outlets can cut costs.

It is here that it all becomes superficial. This is what movies such as A Face In The Crowd are warning us of.

Media executives and journalists, even if they are the most noble and enlightened people in the world, have to decide what to report. They also decide how it is reported. It may not be what an equally noble and enlightened constituent wants to learn about. Not only this, these mass media decisions are influenced by the need to make enough money to at least cover costs. I am not passing judgement here; what I am at least attempting to write is a synopsis of the situation today.

In short, what we need is decentralisation.

It is happening with media channels, to some extent i.e. with internet media as mentioned. In other ways, it is becoming more centralised e.g. with big media companies buying local newspapers. The latter decreases an individual's opportunity to say her/his piece. The way I am seeing the world at this time is that we desperately need a decentralisation of political power. There should not even be a President of the United States of America. There definitely should not be political parties.

We still need the legislatures but it is only if they are filled with politicians who are independent of one another that representation can ever take place. In the end, isn't that the baseline reason why those legislatures are even there? If this happens then media will, of necessity, decentralise as well. Constituents will be able to communicate with their representative (rather than a political party machine). Representatives will be able to communicate with constituents. Representatives will also be answerable to their constituents - and only their constituents.

Practical action: vote for political candidates who do not belong to any political party.

To anyone who wishes to argue that I am being idealistic, I say okay - your saying so/believing it makes it true. If you say it and believe it then, yes, I am being idealistic. What I can also write is that I have given up on political parties. What about you? The next time you look in the mirror, you can say that the person you are seeing is the cause for much of the corruption (not always financial) which exists in the world.

It is all a question of energy.

On my end, thank-you for giving your time and attention here. For whatever it may be worth, you may be satisfied that you have met whatever expectations I had. All the best.