Oso uses a German pilot’s statement that he would not have shot down the author of the Little Prince, had he known, to ask:

Will Global Voices’ coverage of Iranian bloggers have any influence one way or the other on a potential US invasion? It is comforting to think that it could, but realistically, I doubt it.

(I’m going to project a little there and clarify that it’s comforting to think it could prevent a U.S. attack- which would probably be in the form of Guernica-esque bombing, rather than a land invasion.)

Oso concludes:

the fragmentation of media is part of the democratization of media, an important step forward. But as more and more and more content comes to us, will we ever form a relationship with it like we did with the Little Prince?

This blurs relationship and reach a little. Yes, some of us are getting information from so many sources we may be less likely to form a relationship with any of them. However, more of us will probably form a close connection, a relationship similar to and potentially richer than that of readers of the Little Prince, with one or more of these many sources.

For me the real question is how many people will a given voice, a voice that may really matter, reach?

If Global Voices and other media providing connections to the people of Iran reached most people in the United States – as many who hear the Bush regime’s ghost tales – it could stop another tragic, chosen war of aggression.

To have both democratization – with its fragmentation – and reach, I propose (tirelessly, I think is the polite way to say it) a solution in which we all take responsibility to do a little bit of the filtering. A fresh sample of people drawn from a wider network can decide for each item what will have the widest reach. Democratic communication, publishing by jury – call it what you will – a network for news and information controlled by nobody and everybody is a unifying force necessary to make more media from more sources a transformational force.