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

[Matthew Williams]

I can live with Pete's distinction between paid and unpaid articles.

Sometimes people do write press releases after the fact. I can think of 
at least one we've centered (way before Pete got involved).

-- Matt

On Apr 10, 2005, at 10:41 AM, Sofia JarrinT wrote:

> 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!_______________________________________________
> Boston-editorial mailing list
> Boston-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-editorial
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 14746 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/boston-editorial/attachments/20050410/9cf8789b/attachment-0001.bin