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

[Matthew Williams]

That still leaves the question if we can make a distinction between 
press releases and self-reports on protests. We get a lot of valuable 
reporting in the form of the latter and I'd really hate to not be able 
to feature it. Yes, it might be a good idea to label is as a 
self-report (although it's not always clear), but I don't want 
important stuff not to get covered in the center column because we're 
too caught up in mainstream ideas about journalism. -- Matt

On Apr 9, 2005, at 12:02 PM, Pete Stidman wrote:

> I don't think anyone believes in true objectivity
> here, but there is a journalistic obligation to tell
> the full truth or as close to that truth as you can,
> by including as you say, "inconvenient facts" and
> explaining how they do or don't fit in to the story.
>
> There also isn't any such thing as truth, only the
> idea that the presentation of multiple perpectives
> breeds mutual understanding.  Let's not let this
> dialogue digress onto a philosophical debate because I
> think were all on the same page there.
>
> I would agree with Sophia, that press releases need to
> separated out if we use them.  One good reason is that
> there should be some sort of incentive for our
> writiers to take these press releases, call a few
> people, and post a two or three paragraph story about
> it.  If we just publish PR's, there is less incentive
> to do that.
>
> THere are different ways to get the newswire rolling
> faster.  We could explore those ways rather than
> lowering the bar more than we already have.
>
> -Pete
>
>
> --- Matthew Williams <mw21 at mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Boston-editorial mailing list
>> Boston-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
>>
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-editorial
>>
>
>
>
> 		
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
>