Yet, while delving on the corporate affiliations of the mass media, one also does need to take into consideration, Bennett’s assertion that it is not the inherent freedom and viability available in the internet that is making it a medium of choice for global activism, but rather it is the human contexts amidst which the internet operates as a media that is largely responsible for the mass power and appeal ascribed to the internet.
In that context the question that needs to be understood is that while cherishing the new media as a vantage point of choice for global activism, one does need to consider as to what is here new for the disseminators of global activism and the target audience. No wonder the biggest attribute that has made the internet a medium of choice for highly segregated, loosely joined and ideologically variegated global activism is the fact that the internet is a medium that is readily compatible with an array of personally owned and economically purchasable personal media. While in his article Bennett has touched on the relative cost effectiveness of the internet, he really failed to mention that when compared to the gargantuan investment imminent in the mass media and the corporate exclusiveness that decides the dissemination of content in it, the internet is a readily available and easily accessible tool for content dissemination even for the activists who have not been able to fathom the so called technology divide. The internet is as a media accrues much power owing to the fact that it is readily compatible with the technological trends ushering in the high multiplicity of personally owned media. Even the mass media like the television and print media find themselves highly subservient to the internet when it comes to commanding a stake in the clientele that is technology savvy or that prefers to approach content and