It's open season on the Web ... and technology is calling the shots.

'It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us...'

From the Charles Dickens novel "A Tale of Two Cities" - set during the French Revolution

Are those at the centre of power really in touch with the public taste? Can they - even as heads of state - anticipate what events will trigger a public response - whether in business or government? Perhaps equally important, do they understand how technology is influencing who sets today's communication agenda?

Harry Jay Knowles is creating his own legend within Hollywood movie circles. While he sits at his computer in Austin, Texas, sending out electronic critiques of the latest films to be released, the Beverly Hills moguls fume. Interneters tune daily into Knowles' web site for his view on films in production or to update themselves on Tinseltown gossip.

Working with feeds from a network of contacts inside and outside the film industry, Knowles says his role is to cover all stages of a film's development "without the studio line" to cloud people's judgment. The studio bosses claim he is undermining a film's future success - pushing opinions based on public preview screenings of rough cuts which bear little resemblance to the finished product. But Knowles remains unrepentant, tapping away at his site entitled "ain't-it-cool-news."

Meanwhile, on another part of the Internet, the reputation of Microsoft founder Bill Gates is undergoing electronic meltdown. The once demi-god of the computer world is now the subject of online jokes and outright fury from keyboarders who disagree with Microsoft's monopoly and with what they claim are inferior products.

Vilification of the Microsoft chairman started in a relatively harmless way as a string of jokes was forwarded and multiplied on the Internet. But the jokes are now swamping web sites once devoted to serious and informed debate about problems with Microsoft programmes.

Harry Knowles' tilt at Hollywood and the anti-Gates campaign serve to underline one simple truth: It doesn't matter how much power, money or influence you have, in today's wired world it can be undermined by technology - remotely, silently and all within the law.

Technology has great potential to influence a commercial organisation's business agenda - a point forever locked into the consciousness of Daimler-Benz. When the German car maker launched its Mercedes A-class vehicle last year, the model was billed as the most revolutionary small car since the Mini.

All was well for the launch until a road test was carried out by a small Swedish motoring magazine. The A-class was put through a test which simulates a dramatic swerve to avoid a moose sprinting across an icy road. At just under 40 mph the car tipped over. A devastating blow was dealt to the Daimler-Benz reputation by television pictures of the test, sent around the world by the media. Seeing media photographs of the overturned vehicle was one thing, but television footage of the car tilting onto two wheels led to customers cancelling their orders. The revolutionary "Baby Benz" had become a public relations disaster with a costly halt in production and redesign.

The Changing World

No longer do the Hollywood moguls, Bill Gates or industrial giants such as Daimler-Benz have total control over their futures. Likewise, no head of state is free of technology's grasp. When former U.S. President George Bush was filmed collapsing at a formal state banquet in Japan in 1992, questions about his health became an instant political issue. The image of a dazed Mr. Bush collapsing did little for the 67-year-old president's ensuing campaign for re-election. No reporters were present when Bush fell ill; and the camera had only been switched on remotely outside the room as he collapsed. No TV coverage would have made it easier for the president's reputation and his Japanese hosts. The severity of his collapse could have been brushed aside if there had been only word of mouth reports. But the probing eye of the camera had captured instant reality.

Likewise, the Internet revealed its power when the first news report of the sexual allegations involving President Clinton was posted on the web site The Drudge Report. The story, described by the London Evening Standard newspaper as "Zippergate: the world's first Cyberscandal," shoved Saddam Hussein and the Pope right off the front pages. At the same time, it changed the pace of news delivery and showed up the more cumbersome print and television media. Perhaps equally important, it underlined that the blurred libel laws governing the web mean virtually any kind of rumour or slander can be reported there.

The world has moved on, with a new public agenda being underwritten by the advances in technology. Governments, corporations and others driving the public agenda once went about their business unmolested by a questioning public and a media armed with satellite feeds and 24-hour CNN reality. Governments set out their policies and governed. Corporations made their business plans and often gave the public what they thought they wanted. Not so today. Once-powerful dictators such as Pol Pot now look all-too-human during captivity in front of a video camera. Rich, influential corporations now try to anticipate consumers' every whim to take a share of the ever-growing global marketplace.

Nowadays, people in many cultures will not hesitate to air their views on issues felt to be important: pollution of the environment, unethical business practices, product recalls, excessive top executive salaries and trading with unsavoury regimes. The potential power of this new social order, backed by technology, was first identified by social theorist Marshall McLuhan. Over a generation ago he coined the phrase "global village." He saw a sort of borderless world in which communication media would transcend the boundaries of nations. He said "ours is a brand-new world of allatonceness. Time has ceased, space has vanished. We now live in...a simultaneous happening."

In communication terms, his vision has arrived. CNN broadcasts its live news coverage in English to 130 million households in 210 countries and territories. Hong Kong-based Star TV (Satellite Television Asia Region) beams signals via its AsiaSat I transmission satellite in geostationary orbit high above the equator to a growing audience in English, with plans for bulletins simultaneously in Mandarin, Cantonese, Hindi and Arabic. Such power of instant transmission means that for governments, corporations or whoever, there may be no secrets in a world where everyone knows your business.

Power of Technology

Technology's ability to reflect the public mood and influence the balance of power was made clear following the death last year of Diana, Princess of Wales, in a Paris car accident. The British television pictures told it all: The public laying some 60 million floral tributes and gifts in her memory; the thousands of mourners sharing their public grief and their anger at the royal family; the emotionally moving pictures during, and after, the funeral watched by millions around the world. It was an event which, in news terms, became the biggest story in Britain for more than a century.

During the aftermath of Diana's death, technology served to highlight the restive mood of a public demanding a more outward-showing of mourning from the House of Windsor. The media responded, generating live street interviews and headlines reflecting this public discontent.

One media columnist spoke of a geological pressure exerted on the royal family by the media in the name of the people. Such was the pressure, the queen and royal family came south to London early, went on walk-about amid the flowers, and extended the funeral route so more people could take part. The queen addressed the nation in what was clearly a hastily arranged live television broadcast - all of this being an unprecedented abandonment of protocol.

Shift in Public Opinion

A major shift had taken place in public opinion on the role and authority of the monarchy, reflected by technology through the media. By the beginning of 1998, this people revolution had forced wide-ranging reforms. Opinion research is to be commissioned to find out what the public wants from its "royals." There is talk of greater access for the public to the royal family. Even the media has not escaped the pressure from public opinion via the technology of their own news channels. Newspaper editors notorious for hounding Diana are supporting new agreements to restrict invasion of privacy, and the U.K. Press Complaints Commission has put up proposals to drive the press photo paparazzi out of Britain. One columnist commented that Diana's greatest legacy "may well turn out to be a permanent sea change in journalistic values and methodology around the world."

Lessons on Communication and Technology

The legacy of Diana's death, Harry Knowles' battle with Hollywood, and even the online assault of Bill Gates leave many lessons for those of us advising on communication policy and practice.

The world has changed. The balance of power has shifted. Public dissatisfaction with a number of issues is now very real. People realise they can make a difference or influence the decisions that affect their lives - even challenge a power system often seen as antiquated and outdated, a system once described by Princess Diana as run "by men in grey suits." Honesty and openness is now confronting evasion and secrecy, with people prepared to use technology and the communication networks of non-governmental organisations to make it all happen.

A Revolution in Attitudes to Authority

The public view of governments, corporations and other power bases has changed in many cultures. Long established respect and deference is being questioned; reputation now has to be earned by clearly demonstrated behaviour. Exxon discovered this when the Valdez tanker went aground in Alaska. Public unrest on Pan American's handling of the Lockerbie air disaster was partly responsible for a lack of confidence in the airline which lead to its demise. And Shell underestimated the public view on its plans to dispose of the Brent Spar oil platform in the North Atlantic.

The public has become less forgiving. It was over a year before there were calls for the impeachment of former U.S. president Richard Nixon over Watergate. It took just a few days for the same calls to be heard once the allegations facing President Clinton became public knowledge.

Understand the technology. The new electronic technology is the chosen mode of communication for a whole generation. It offers them a direct, often anonymous and influential route to the centres of power, unfettered by normal protocol or regulations. A global campaign on the Internet can be set rolling in less than an hour. A broadcaster using a satellite transmitter and video camera small enough to fit in a backpack can send a story damaging to business quickly around the world. Applying computer technology to both printing and broadcasting offers the possibility of deception at the flick of a switch, or the twitch of a mouse, according to London-based Matthew Parris, columnist with The Times newspaper. Images like photographs can, for example, be altered on screen. Says Parris: "Journalists are not growing more deceitful, but deceit is growing easier."

Within this technology scenario, an opportunity opens for organisations to communicate across borders to people they would otherwise not reach - a potential already realised by governments, corporations and even the Vatican. But it is technology which waits for no-one. The creators of the latest James Bond movie, "Tomorrow Never Dies," found somebody had registered the Internet site "www.tomorrowneverdies.com" before they could do so. Unable to prove that it compromised their ability to trade (the film name is not a registered trademark), and unwilling to pay large amounts to buy the name, they were forced to put the site up under the more obscure "www.tnd.com."

What you say (or don't say) and how you say it is all important. By anticipating the public mood and putting communication at the top of the business agenda, organisations have a reasonable chance of influencing their futures. But how you speak on radio (once described by Lenin as "a newspaper without paper and without frontiers") or on television, is not the same as in print or on the Internet. Each has its style acceptable to the receivers of messages.

Don't ignore the medium or messages. The media is not always the true barometer of the public mood. Sometimes it mischievously and irresponsibly tries to create it. But its power to reflect what is being thought or said should never be underestimated. People in countries without broad television links are keeping in touch with national and world events through radio networks. Where local media are scarce or dissent has been muzzled, listening to foreign radio stations has become a national pastime. Newspapers and news magazines at times feeling outpaced by the electronic media revolution, work at giving an in-depth, analytical approach to news, impossible through the fleeting visual images of television.

We live in a visual age. Television has become the global messenger. People want to see their news, fantasy or reality - not just read about it. In the case of Diana, she provided the best of both - her life became public property; a TV soap with all the drama that was watched around the world. So it could be with the happenings within a corporation. Television is a world of intrusion, where no human emotion or frailty is so private or precious that it should not go on public display for the rest of us. It is a medium that needs to be handled with care.

Contradictions

In our age of "communication on demand," the speed of change and the contradictions can be intimidating. But we can adapt or be taken prisoner by the public mood and forces of technology. During the days after Diana's death, one newspaper reported that there were signs a cult could be developing. The biographer of a former British monarch responded testily: "All this hysteria is unhealthy. It's just like Evita. Diana was no saint." The point is, people didn't care. In so many words they were saying: "Welcome to the 21st century."

Alan Lane is principal of a company that advises organisations on communication trends and policy. He is based in Hampton Court, England and can be reached via e-mail at: [e-mail]