The message is in the mix of audio, video and print

Initial reaction to our opinion-page series on the press and democracy has been surprising and welcome. People do care about their local and national media and are prepared to share their thoughts with us — and you — through our pages.

Inside the journalism cocoon, the reaction has been interest and curiosity. Clearly, the national press corps has other things on its mind now, but interested reporters at other newspapers and bloggers are asking, "Where are you going with this?" Podcasts of this column and why it is written can be found on the "Opinion" link atseattletimes.com. That's only one way we are trying to connect with readers, critics and supporters through print, online and audio.

Last week, The New York Times, for the first time, let a responding letter writer put his opinions in a video presented via the newspaper's Web site.

An account in the trade publication Editor & Publisher on Friday noted the video letter to the editor was created by anti-war activist Charles Ferguson, responding to a traditional printed op-ed essay from former envoy to Iraq, L. Paul Bremer. Ferguson and The New York Times used images from his film, "No End in Sight," to rebuff the Bremer commentary.

How many mixed-media messages are there going to be? you ask.

I think the answer is, many. This fall, Seattle Times editorial writers will again return to SCAN, the local public-television channel, to quiz candidates on their campaigns for public office. That will include Seattle City Council, the Port of Seattle and others. That coincides with interviews of candidates and initiative activists coming before The Times' editorial board in the traditional role of fostering public debate.

Expansion of the Web is, in every way, the natural expansion of democracy and of the country's editorial pages. For The Seattle Times, using the Web, outlets such as SCAN television and the state's useful TVW programs as adjuncts to print is the obvious next step in the merging of technologies.

On the next page, or the next link if you are reading this online, are two editorial opinions this Sunday on the government's obligation to free the Internet through net neutrality and building more broadband capacity to stay even with other countries. The arrival of a wonderful communication tool to rural and poor areas of the country is vital to the democratic principles of hearing every voice and every opinion. The Times' editorial on broadband capacity notes the United States can be compared to a Soviet-era grocery store, and Japan's Internet capacity to a Whole Foods. Countries wired for the future are automatically also wired for democracy, whether their leaders like it or not.

That theme also connects to our position on net neutrality. In a nutshell, passage of a net-neutrality bill by Congress this fall would result in an equal playing field for everyone on the Internet — not just those who pay a premium for faster service. Dial-up times would not be slower for lower payments, and the Internet would not be a screen for political commentary. A quick example of that was AT&T's deletion of comments made by Pearl Jam's Eddie Vedder during a concert webcast. Both editorials can be read today or viewed today at seattletimes.com. You can also hear the thoughts of editorial-page columnists via the podcasts under the Opinion section of the site.

Democracy and the airwaves are taken for granted, but clearly the public airwaves and the corporate webmasters threaten, through economic exclusion or hidden censorship, the functions of a democratic society.

That's where this series is headed. We are trying to understand the democratic community of the future, coming at us at light speed.

James F. Vesely's column appears Sunday on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is: jvesely@seattletimes.com; for a podcast Q&A with the author, go to Opinion at seattletimes.com