I belong to the Committee of Concerned Journalists, and last night attended a preview of "News War: Secrets, Spin and the Future of News" that Frontline will begin airing on PBS at 9 p.m. tonight. I can't tell you much about the series, because Frontline opted to show us a very small slice of the series, which will be aired in four segments this month and next.  What I can tell you is that the panel discussion to promote the series reminded me once again, of why I left mainstream journalism.  The panelists seemed totally oblivious to the huge fight to totally corporatize our media, including the Internet, and its implication for diversity of viewpoint, freedom of expression, and innovation.

Indeed, when I asked a question about net neutrality -- the right of individuals to access any information and use any lawful application on the Internet without the interference of an Internet Service Provider -- the panelists were almost totally unresponsive.  Dana Priest, a very big-time Washington Post reporter, asked: "What's net neutrality?"  The fact that she asked the question truly is an indictment of her own newspaper, which continues to cover media issues as business stories, and buries them in the business section of their paper.

But far more disappointing was the response of Scott Moore, vice president for Yahoo! News, who explained net neutrality to his colleagues on the panel, but then claimed it was "a tempest in a teapot," offering the bogus argument that in a competitive media marketplace, any company that withheld content that people wanted would find those individuals choosing another cable or broadband provider.  Of course, that argument is so fraught with inaccuracies, it is pathetic.  First of all, everyone knows that when a consumer contracts with a cable or telephone company for a bundle of services, it is extremely difficult to switch services.  Secondly, companies are not going to cut off access to information, they are just going to make some information way more difficult to get to.  You won't be able to find www.commoncause.org on a search engine, or when you try to access us, it will take far longer to reach us.

It is no secret that cable and phone companies want to make the Internet a vehicle for selling things and entertainment, a replica of cable with all its lack of choice and big profits.

America Online and Yahoo announced a program today that sounds good for their subscribers - but that could be the beginning of the end for openness and fairness on the Internet.

According to news reports, AOL and Yahoo are going to give preferential treatment to commercial emailers who pay a small per-message fee, about ¼ of a penny per email. For that tiny price, their email messages will bypass filters and get to subscribers faster and more efficiently than other email. They're billing it as a benefit (CertifiedEmail!) for you and me.

But don't be fooled. This practice is one step towards the end of net neutrality. Net neutrality is the principle that your Internet provider shouldn't be able to restrict, limit or interfere with your ability to access any web content you choose or use any application you choose - including email.

Maybe you think it's not a big deal that Amazon.com can pay to have its sales emails delivered to your inbox faster than your sister's vacation photos. But it sets a dangerous precedent of allowing Internet providers to pick and choose which content you'll be able to access and how fast it will be delivered to you. Today it's your email. Tomorrow it's websites you visit. And after that it'll be services, like the ability to download real-time video and watch TV shows on the Internet.

Stay tuned. Congress holds hearings on net neutrality tomorrow.