In case you didn't notice, Capitol Hill Blue has been making many a politician uncomfortable this week as publisher Doug Thompson, editor Jack Sharp and their staff roll out a series of articles describing Congress as America's only tolerated "criminal class." The series will consist of five parts and is due to wrap up on Friday.

At the same time my own boss, Joseph Farah, editor and publisher of WorldNetDaily, has been doing the same thing -- exposing the corruption endemic to the congressional criminal class. As you might have guessed, Joe has also been making more than a few politicians uneasy. In fact he's been doing that for some time now, and, as his articles demonstrate, that unease has made it all the way to the top -- the White House.

These publications, along with a select few others, are part of a new breed of news service called, "The New Media." "Media," because our job is reporting the news, and "new" because the medium -- the Internet -- is the newest way Americans get their information. The Internet is a real-time, high-impact alternative to other forms of news reporting, though I wouldn't say it's time yet to roll up the newsprint and shut down the printing presses (perhaps in a few years?).

These publications are also "new" because, ironically, they have chosen "old" concepts of reporting. Simply put, that means we're not beholden to any particular political party. After all, the real purpose of a free press is not to sway or idolize; it's to keep an eye on the government -- to act as a watchdog, as Joe has frequently pointed out, against corruption. And I dare say, judging from the looks of it, the corruption within our government is rampant, frequent, far-reaching, and bipartisan. There are few innocents left in Congress, the White House or the administration in general these days, and being a shill for a favored political party makes it impossible to remain unbiased.

Now you may think the fact that our government seems so corrupt doesn't bode well for our country as we enter into the year 2000, but I would tend to disagree. We have an incredible opportunity to change things -- really change them -- because of this rapid, fluid and instantaneous form of communication called the New Media. In fact, in a few short years, we've already begun to do that.

Just look at what's been accomplished in just under two years here at our paper:

• We broke the CNN-Tailwind story, which had major negative connotations for both government and CNN. Reputations were shot, people were fired, some quit, and others have basically never been the same.

• We've broken, and continue to break, the Clinton-directed IRS persecution of dozens of opposition publications and organizations. Though the results are not yet to our satisfaction, the stories helped at least prompt congressional hearings, an avalanche of citizen contact among legislators, and a cursory re-write of IRS audit rules.

• We were the first to break the news about Clinton's federalism executive order, and we followed that up as the first to break the news regarding Clinton's newest attempt at changing how states view their relationship with Washington in a new executive order on federalism.

• On numerous occasions we have broken stories about small-time government abuse of ordinary citizens -- stories that, once broken, have often resulted in favorable outcomes for those being persecuted.

There are other examples of the power of the New Media.

Bill Gertz, ace defense and national security reporter for The Washington Times credits the Internet and New Media for publicizing his book, "Betrayal," turning it into a bestseller and allowing huge portions of the population to learn just how badly the Clinton administration has hurt U.S. national security. While Clinton is still in office, so far most of the fallout of scandal endemic to the president is likely going to prevent his vice president, Al Gore, from taking his place. We'll see, but it doesn't look good for Gore right now, and we in the New Media have to take some credit for that.

And, from Capitol Hill Blue's most recent investigative work on the congressional criminal class to NewsMax.com's expose on Clinton's rape of Juanita Broaddrick, to CNSNews.org's up-to-the-minute coverage of details the "established press" chooses to conveniently leave out, to the FreeRepublic's instant coverage and discussion forum, the New Media is definitely having a favorable impact on the way Americans get their information and view those they send to govern on their behalf. After all, who can forget Matt Drudge's breaking story on the Clinton-Lewinsky affair? The print media (Newsweek) had it, but, because of the editorial staff's ideological oneness with Bill Clinton, chose not to run it. Hardly fair and unbiased reporting, is it?

The thing is, that's exactly what our founding fathers meant to create when they wrote the First Amendment -- "a free press for a free people," unencumbered by political ideological alliances, coalitions -- and even advertisers -- so they could prevent a necessary evil -- government -- from becoming tyrannical.

I will grant you that all the tyranny has not stopped yet. As long as mere mortal men and women rule over others here on earth there will always be a tendency to grab more power, rule more territory, or impose more will on the helpless because that's human nature. But as long as these people exist, so too must a free press, to keep an eye on those who mean to rob us of our freedoms exposed and in check.

In short, we're not here to become media celebrities, talking heads, or to get invited to White House dinners and to hobnob with the "power elite" in Washington. We're here because of you -- the people -- for you to use our information as a guideline to help rid the country of the cowardly corrupt. "Leaders" who cannot abide by our rules, accept the parameters and limitations of our Constitution, and who cannot help themselves when it comes to seizing more power for them do not belong in our government, pure and simple. And historically, it's been the media that is supposed to inform Americans about what is going on, who is responsible, and what the meat of the issue is really all about.

It's a shame that the "established media" have forgotten this most simple of missions, this most mundane of mandates. But those of us here in the New Media don't mind taking up the slack; we're here precisely because we can't accept reporting the news any other way. But in a news story, we won't tell you what to think or what to believe because ultimately, what you do with the information is up to you. But you deserve to have the facts -- all the facts -- before you make up your mind.

If our "leaders" are uncomfortable with our brand of reporting, that's good. That means we're doing our jobs. We're casting a critical light on them and taking away the shadows so many of them are used to hiding in.

But then again, I would ask that if these people were honest to begin with, why should they be uncomfortable? If honesty, integrity and sense of duty were endemic to politics and government, would the New Media have turned into such an information revolution?

I doubt it. There would have been no need for us.