I'm not alone either, because other politically incorrect voices are beginning to be heard. Even better, people are sitting up and paying attention.

"Imagine how campaigning must have changed with the advent of the printing press. A similar qualitative jump has been achieved with the Internet." That's what Om Damani, a member of the Enron Action Group, tells me.

He has a point. Before TCP/IP arrived, voices of dissent were largely ignored. They were given no place in mainstream media, had little or no resources to boost their presence, and couldn't really consider reaching out to more than immediate, small circles.

"Making alternative views available is the first step," says Omar J Pahati, Associate Editor at AlterNet, a non-profit organisation dedicated to supporting independent and alternative journalism. "We cannot inform with the broad reach of mainstream news but we will attract progressive people. Further, it is our hope that, through technology, these perspectives are spread as widely as possible. It is a tremendous impact for these views to be expressed somewhere, as opposed to nowhere".

Setting up a Web site is a lot cheaper, and the potential audience it reaches out to is unrivalled by most forms of media today. Because marginalized voices, by default, work on tight budgets, the Internet really is a Godsend.

Today, those whom the media love to ignore are speaking out anyway. And there's precious little anyone can do to stop them.

Take WTC. You have to, because it's pretty much in your face on a daily basis. Now, if it weren't for sites like znet, common dreams, the alternative press centre, counterpunch, and open democracy, the US would have managed to get away with murder while everyone went out and bought French fries.

After September 11, the criticism rolled in from all corners; first against terrorism, then the American military initiative.

Noam Chomsky, long regarded as a dissident thinker, came out of the shadows the news media had relegated him to. Suddenly, he could make statements about the transparent PR gesture surrounding the bombing with its accompanying food packages. Suddenly, everyone online could react to his belief that if harbouring suspected terrorists was a crime that merited bombing, much of the world - including America - ought to be attacked instantly.

More people are beginning to realise that the alternative press isn't about intellectuals spewing cant. If that were entirely true, the sites would all have shut shop and gone away. What they are doing instead is shaping public opinion in a way newspapers can only dream about.

While the mainstream media concentrated on justifying the "Just war on terrorism", the alternative press questioned the nature of patriotism, rethought the American dream , revealed the scope of civilian destruction and the short-sightedness of policy makers, talked about how the roots of 'Anti-Americanism' lay in US Foreign Policy and highlighted the illegality of the whole US military initiative.

Mailing lists went out of control, alternative press sites scored massive hits, and their editors were inundated with email. Everything said offline was analysed, commented upon or simply dismissed.

All kinds of voices were given room, beginning with the big fish. Edward Said drew parallels between the 'war' and the systematic pursuit of interests by an imperial power. Arundhati Roy called the bombing of Afghanistan yet another act of terror on the world's people while Francis Fukuyama, reiterating his old 'end of history' theory, added that the liberal-democratic West would continue being the only system to dominate world politics.

Then, the other fish and their neighbours got their chance.

Without cyberspace, where would the onion find readers for stories like 'Not knowing what else to do, woman bakes American-flag cake' and 'A shattered nation longs to care about stupid bullshit again'? Where would Michael Moore accuse the US of being an active participant in the 'culture of violence'? How would a certain Tamim Ansary find himself in the spotlight after trying to separate the Taleban and Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan?

Rhetoric was, for a rare moment, tempered with a bit of reason.

Everything surrounding the war was questioned, and minorities represented by writers like Sonia Shah catalogued experiences not discussed elsewhere. "What are you looking at, terrorist bitch?" she wrote, repeating what a man on a Manhattan-bound subway said to her sister in the aftermath of the attacks.

Thankfully, there has been a lot of encouragement. Omar Pahati says, "To many Americans, a balanced press depends on sites like AlterNet because the mainstream press is just not going to offer what we do. On the other hand, more conservative readers are critical. Like many progressives, we are sometimes unfairly accused of being unpatriotic or too liberal".

Closer home, communalism combat and altindia play similar roles, revealing what the Indian media sweeps under its carpets. AltIndia calls itself an attempt to create a space 'on and about the other India.' It welcomes groups and individuals to put up 'any and all information that they feel ought to be in the public domain.'

Is there any attempt made to suppress information? "Several newspapers refused to carry our advertisements about the Enron issue,'' says Om Damani. "We haven't experienced any pressure though". Jyoti Thottam, President, South Asian Journalists Association (SAJA), says: "Since September 11, we have received some hate mail. But I can't think of any instance when we've come under unreasonable pressure from particular groups or from the government." Though SAJA circulates articles already published, a number of journalists covering the South Asian diaspora find it useful.

What next? Given its 'non-proprietary' nature, will the Internet eventually compel alternative voices to become more mainstream? Om Damani doesn't think so: "Because of the recent attacks, the left is in a period of transition where beliefs and values are being distilled, rethought, and strengthened. I might even say the left is primed for a renaissance. Alternative voices are flourishing and it's the Internet's time to shine."

Thottam, on the other hand, believes that while many in the media expected the Web to revolutionise news, it has only speeded things up without substantively changing the overall dynamic of power: "I think that if and when underlying inequalities are addressed, you will see a more substantive change in the media. I would also argue that while the Internet may erase political boundaries to some extent, it does not erase economic boundaries. There are many parts of the world --sub-Saharan Africa, for example -- where radio remains a more powerful and effective medium".

And so things move on, with new wars and newer arguments. The only thing changing is the balance of information. With HyperText Mark-up Language, debates have become more informed.

What makes it all so important, finally, is this: there never is a single reality, or truth. There are multiple Islams, multiple Americas, and multiple histories. To laud one at the expense of another can only lead to more tragedies like the WTC. Without the voices of dissent, we stand to lose more than just an alternative viewpoint. We stand to lose significant facets of our own lives.