[Boston-editorial] Wealthy Say article- for discussion please

[Matthew Williams]

Every article we get has some slant or other to it, whether it's 
explicit or implicit. (And not just every article we get--every news 
article that's ever been written--there is no such thing as writing 
from a politically neutral perspective. There's being disciplined in 
your writing and checking facts. Sometimes it's appropriate to lay out 
the other side of the argument clearly and fairly before rebutting it. 
I believe in objectivity in that sense--engaging in disciplined 
research and writing, recognizing and dealing with what the great 
sociologist Max Weber called "inconvenient facts" that don't fit neatly 
into your worldview. Objectivity in the sense of political neutrality 
though is a myth that simply naturalizes the belief systems that 
support the status quo as neutral and natural.) Every time we decide to 
center an article, we're deciding whether or not we support some cause, 
based on the slant of the article. We center those articles which are 
coming from a progressive perspective. This doesn't mean we have to all 
strictly agree with everything we center--I once centered a feature 
during the gay marriage debate that was a radical queer critique of 
marriage (marriage as a failed heterosexual institution with which gay 
people should have nothing to do). I didn't agree with it, but thought 
it was well written and made some good points--and it was progressive. 
But we are indicating where our sympathies generally lie when we center 
things. Centering press releases isn't any different--it's just a 
matter of making sure people know what they're reading, as Jonathan 
said. A separate area for press releases might make sense if we got the 
massive volume Common Dreams does, but at this point we're not--right 
now, I think it's better to keep the turn-over in the center column 
going at a reasonable rate, through putting all quality postings there 
and just indicating clearly what they are. -- Matt

On Apr 8, 2005, at 2:46 PM, Sofia JarrinT wrote:

> (i forgot to do reply all)
>
> hi,
> I don't think centering press releases is such a good
> idea in general because then we are left having to
> make a decision each time whether we support the press
> release or not.  Also, press releases by their nature
> are one-sided (how much I might agree w/a certain
> org's mission) and articles, on the other hand, are
> supposed to address both sides of the issue.
> Centering a press release to me reads like we're
> sponsoring this or that group, much like signing on to
> an action.
>
> One solution might be having a separate section for
> Press Releases?  Kind of how Commondreams.org deals
> with them (see right-hand bar).  Since there fewer of
> them, they stay on the bar longer...
>
> cheers,
> Sofia
>
> --- Matthew Williams <mw21 at mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> A thought occurred to me about an easy way to
>> address the press release
>> problem, so that we can center them but not run into
>> the problem of
>> treating press releases as independent news. We just
>> label them  as
>> press releases. We could either add it to the
>> options that now include
>> news, announcement, commentary, review, etc.; or we
>> could put "Press
>> Release:" at the beginning of the summary, the way
>> Pete did with "From
>> the Open Newswire:" with the announcement about
>> gentrification in
>> JP--and some IMCs do with all their features. I
>> think I prefer the
>> latter option, because then the fact that it's a
>> press release is more
>> visible. What do people think of this idea? Or is
>> this too easy a
>> solution? -- Matt
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2005, at 12:00 PM, Matthew Williams wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for taking down the article on the
>> developer in JP, Pete. And I
>>> can see your concerns about the UFE article. I
>> liked it because I
>>> thought it would stump some of the trolls who
>> posted to the previous
>>> article we got from UFE. And some of the more
>> dogmatic radicals who
>>> insist all rich people are evil--missing the basic
>> point of a radical
>>> analysis, that it's the class/capitalist *system*
>> that is the problem,
>>> not necessarily individual members of the
>> capitalist class. (Blaming
>>> the world's problems on rich people being evil is
>> actually a rather
>>> liberal analysis--the implication is that if we
>> just had nice rich
>>> people, who were reformists, everything would be
>> solved. But bad
>>> systems can make good people do bad things. And
>> this is hardly an
>>> original thought--you can find it in Marx's
>> /Capital/. OK, I'm off on
>>> a complete tangent here.)
>>>
>>> The thing is we frequently get articles that are
>> essentially people
>>> covering their own rallies--the article on the
>> Palestinian rights
>>> protest outside Caterpillar headquarters is one
>> example and I think
>>> the protest outside the Mexican Consulate is
>> probably another. In some
>>> cases, we just won't get coverage in any other
>> way.
>>>
>>> I'm not entirely sure what we should do about
>> this. Can we make a
>>> distinction between press releases and
>> self-coverage? I don't think
>>> self-coverage is inherently bad--I think it's a
>> legitimate form of
>>> reporting. I mean even when one of us covers an
>> event, it is coverage
>>> to some extent, since we're participating in the
>> protest in addition
>>> to covering it. But I agree, you're right Pete,
>> there is something
>>> different about the UFE press release. How do make
>> these distinctions.
>>> Whether or not they were written by paid staff?
>>>
>>> (On the whole activism vs. journalism thing, just
>> as I don't want to
>>> impose one model of writing articles on people, I
>> don't want to impose
>>> one position in that debate on people. I guess I
>> would consider myself
>>> an activist-journalist--and some people in the IMC
>> probably consider
>>> themselves one or the other. The idea that
>> journalists are supposed to
>>> do the impossible and be politically neutral is a
>> recent idea--I
>>> believe it only goes back to the 1930s and was
>> part of a larger
>>> project of consolidating elite control over the
>> press. Even for a long
>>> time after that, there was a traditional of
>> advocacy
>>> journalism--journalism that takes sides. That's
>> how I understand what
>>> I do. Some critical distance from the group you're
>> covering can be
>>> helpful, so you can give constructive/sympathetic
>> criticism, but given
>>> that we're an all volunteer group of amateurs,
>> we're not in a position
>>> to feature only that coverage.)
>>>
>>> It would be nice to have some method of centering
>> articles that keeps
>>> us from stepping on each others' toes. I'm not
>> sure three votes is a
>>> the best way--there's the issue of getting things
>> up in a timely
>>> fashion and, after all, the center column
>> guidelines are supposed to
>>> minimize these disputes. I think if we think
>> something might be iffy,
>>> then we should check in. But that might still
>> create problems, as in
>>> this case. May be we just need to clarifying the
>> guidelines more, as
>>> we learn from new disagreements that come up (like
>> this one)? We're
>>> not going to devise a perfect system--the key is
>> that we disagree with
>>> each respectfully and really engage in dialogue
>> about these issues
>>> when they come up.
>>>
>>> -- Matt
>>>
>>> On Apr 7, 2005, at 12:30 AM, Pete Stidman wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am very sorry to take such a drastic action but
>> I
>>>> felt it was neccesary.  I took the article
>> written by
>>>> UFE down.
>>>>
>>>> Please let me explain my position and we can
>> discuss
>>>> this article and perhaps the one before it as
>> well.
>>>>
>>>> One of the main reasons I took it down was that
>> it had
>>>> not appeared on national yet, and I wanted to
>> prevent
>>>> that from happening before we had discussed it.
>>>>
>>>> This article again highlights our own confusion,
>> as a
>>>> group, over the issue of activism vs. journalism,
>> or
>>>> how do the two mix and what are the boundaries.
>>>>
>>>> First of all the reasons for taking this down.
>>>>
>>>> UFE (United for a Fair Economy, the parent of
>>>> Respnsible Wealth) is a well funded non-profit
>> group.
>>>> We have had articles by them before, and by MGA
>> and by
>>>> others, but they have always been commentary or
>>>> analysis.
>>>>
>>>> This article claims to be, or puts on the airs
>> of,
>>>> journalism.
>>>>
>>>> FOr instance, who is this group of wealthy
>> people?
>>>> THere are no names, no evidence of this event.
>> And
>>>> more importantly, the writer is a paid worker for
>>>> RW/UFE and so has a real monetary incentive to
>> make
>>>> his side sound better.
>>>>
>>>> The real problem, as I see it, is the style of
>> the
>>>> article.  I would be open to this if it was
>> written
>>>> straightforward but I still wouldn't want to
>> center it
>>>> as a PR from a group of paid professionals.
>>>>
>>>> Incidentally, we could all take a hint from the
>>>> immense stink recently put up about news stations
>> all
>>>> over the country using promotional
>> videos-reported as
>>>> news- that were actually created by the Bush
>>>> Administration.
>>>>
>>>> This same issue has caused many a scandal at a
>> small
>>>> town newspaper too cheap to pay a reporter to
>> cover a
>>>> story.  When they publish a straight PR piece and
>> get
>>>> caught, they take serious hits to their
>> credibility as
>>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> "Truly, there is no future without forgiveness." Desmond Tutu
>
> "Non-violence is not inaction. It is not discussion. It is not for the 
> timid or weak...Non-violence is hard work. It is the willingness to 
> sacrifice. It is the patience to win." Cesar Chavez
>
>
> 		
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Make Yahoo! your home page
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> _______________________________________________
> Boston-editorial mailing list
> Boston-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-editorial
>