I think it is clear that Americans' choices for media have shrunk tremendously in the past 3 decades (a series of articles is available from this source that considers the affect of internet, software and hardware supplies, cross-ownership of print, broadcasting and internet and ideals vs practical competition theories: http://www.mediacompolicy.org/...). Consumer Union's brief in the recent hearings concerning the Comcast merger is an effective summary of the situation (http://judiciary.house.gov/...). If one looks at the rise of electronic media in the 19th and early 20th centuries we find a parallel situation to today's collapse in competition (see for references to the various anti-trust suits against AT&T, Western Union and others at: http://www.cybertelecom.org/...). We have a media trust environment where a few giant corporations are dominating all forms of media via cross-media ownership and cross venue deals on advertising. We need a new way of anti-trust legislation and lawsuits to break up these monsters and return the airwaves to the public.
There is no greater threat to democracy and liberty than a nation where the means to communicate with your fellow citizens and to be informed of the news of the day is controlled or dominated by a few corporations, individuals or a government. We are in that situation today. Even the news out of North Africa has been so manipulated that we hear and read that social media was the means and the spark that led to revolution in Tunisia and Egypt. The fact that a young man set himself on fire in protest in Tunisia has been lost in the online and media glamorization of Twitter and Facebook as the new Che Guevara's. Despite the fact that the Egyptian government cut off all internet and phone service and al-Jazeera in the first few days of the protest, claims of a media driven event continue to be broadcast.
The small number of handsets capable of Twitter or Facebook have not deterred commentators from what has become a general advertisement for smart phones. But this is also one of the results of monopoly media, there is no means of correcting a general impression that is desired by those who control the broadcasting. Reports from the BBC indicate that Egypt began blocking internet access on the 25th of January (http://www.bbc.co.uk/...). Both internet access and SMS were blocked according to experts (http://mashable.com/...). Cel phone use and land lines were also blocked (http://edition.cnn.com/...).
What was clear from reading both the news interviews, available Twitter and Facebook messages, email posting on websites and surrounding media, was that most of the organizing was being done by face to face discussions on the ground, street by street, family to family. This was the basic means by which millions of Egyptians took control of their lives. Instead the media has made a hero of a Google employee falsely crediting him with both starting the rebellion and intensifying it. This kind of propaganda robs the people of Egypt of the rightful role in the process. Malcolm Gladwell has described how demonstrations spread just as quickly 50 years before Twitter or Facebook in an article in the New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/...).
While everyone may celebrate the immediate results of this revolution, it does lack skepticism. It is amazing that given a few images of the man who set himself on fire and commentaries by strangers set in motion hundreds of thousands to overthrow a government. If this can happen on so little evidence one has to be fearful of the future. Consider that this is what Milosevic and Tudman in the former Yugoslavia did to rile up fanatics to start ethnic cleansing. The power of media was also demonstrated in Rwanda that resulted in the murder of millions. One might hope for a bit of restraint and questioning to prevent mob disorder instead of a peaceful revolution.