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

Sun Apr 10 07:41:45 PDT 2005

As long as it's accurate and a good read, event self-reporting should definitely be featured in the center.  Events are unpredictable because of their nature.  If they are successful and worth reporting on, I think it's great if someone who participated actually takes the time to contribute an article about it.  Even better if the article presents the issues surrounding the event and not just the event itself.

To me this is very different from a press release.  The press release is before the fact, announcing an event or report released.  I think those require more research and the author is left to try to give the reader the context the information is in.
cheers,
Sofia

Ps: Matt, I see your point about "balanced & fair" reporting.  Sociological speaking, all reporting (all writing) is subjective.

Matthew Williams <mw21 at mindspring.com> wrote:
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 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 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/
>

_______________________________________________
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! 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/boston-editorial/attachments/20050410/9b33d8fa/attachment.htm