[Boston-editorial] Bryan Pfeifer

[Matthew Williams]

Well, I don't want to judge someone just by the group they're in, but 
it's important to recognize the power of group dynamics (says the 
sociologist).

I was talking to someone once who was shocked when I complained about 
the dirty shennagins WWP has pulled over the years, taking over other 
people's protests and what not--you see, this guy was friend with a lot 
of WWP members (I think through the Community Church of Boston) and 
they all seemed like nice guys to him. And doubtless they were all 
basically decent people, as is Bryan.

The problem is the organizational culture of groups like WWP, where 
they believe they're right and that gives them the right to do whatever 
they want and thus play dirty, taking credit for other groups' work and 
making up "facts". There's a good reason a lot of other groups don't 
like them and refuse to work with and it's not because of their 
political beliefs (they actually tend to be rather quiet about their 
more outrageous positions, at least in public), but because of the way 
they act as a group. Distorting facts in reporting is certainly 
consistent with WWP's style--I butted heads with them over the issue of 
number of dead from the sanctions on Iraq (they were putting out 
numbers that had no apparent basis in any study or anything) and I 
somehow ended up with a free subscription to their newspaper once. It 
was a real trip. Take their article on why Cambodia is such a 
mess--they quite rightly emphasized the role of the US bombing of the 
country, but they literally did not say one word about the Khmer 
Rouge--a fairly significant omission. (And then there was the line, "It 
should come to no surprise to Marxists that there is life on Mars ..." 
What? What does a social theory like Marxism have to do with 
xenobiology?) Given all that, I think it would make sense to take his 
articles with a grain of salt--he may be basically an honest person, 
but being part of a group like WWP can warp your perspective about 
what's important and he may feel that bending facts to promote your 
cause is legitimate, since that seems to be part of WWP's basic 
culture.

(As for the groups Bryan mentions in his article, about half are WWP 
front groups--the International Action Center, Fight Imperialism Stand 
Together (FIST), Stonewall Warriors, the Women’s Fightback Network and, 
of course, Workers World Party itself. That in itself is something of a 
distortion.)

In any case, I have no objection to Bryan getting involved with the 
IMC--but I think we should be wary. Sectarian groups often have members 
join groups like ours with the hope of taking them over. But I'm 
willing to give him a chance and, yes, perhaps we can draw him out of 
WWP.

bread and roses,
Matt

On Jun 17, 2005, at 11:49 AM, Sofia JarrinT wrote:

> Thanks for the correction.  Yes, Tim clued me in on it
> a bit a few days ago.  Maybe we can suck Bryan out of
> the WWP and bring him into ours. hahaha
>
> Totalitarian, fascist governments run by a small
> oligarchy... I think they all fall in the same
> category.
>
> cheers,
> sofia
>
> --- Pete Stidman <pstidman at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree with your sentiment here, individuals
>> deserve
>> to be judged on their own merit.
>>
>> but just a point of information on the group that
>> Bryan is attached to, the Workers World Party.
>>
>> They support and are rumored to be supported
>> financially by Kim Jong Il of North Korea.  They
>> openly support Stalin.  This is why people are
>> extremely sensitive about this issue.  I suppose
>> technically Fascist is a term for the combination of
>> corporate and government interests so it isn't
>> totally
>> accurate here, ruthless totalitarian is probably
>> more
>> appropriate.
>>
>> -Pete
>>
>> --- Sofia JarrinT <sofiajt at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> hi there,
>>> I met Bryan at the protest and he seemed nice
>>> enough.
>>> He also said that he was more interested in
>> getting
>>> involved with Indymedia and wanted to attend some
>> of
>>> our meetings.
>>>
>>> I don't think we should judge a writer for the
>> group
>>> he/she is involved in (of course, unless it's
>>> fascist)
>>> if her/his reports are accurate and it's good
>>> writing.
>>> I have not really seen a bias towards that group
>> in
>>> past articles.
>>>
>>> In regards to the Phelps protest, I also was there
>>> and
>>> I think the confrontation with the police happened
>>> towards the end and Bryan might have not even seen
>>> it.
>>> Most people didn't, actually, since even when we
>>> were
>>> hanging out with sharpie's friends for lunch, they
>>> had
>>> no idea it had occurred.
>>>
>>> Moreover, I just re-read Bryan's article and the
>>> last
>>> paragraph is careful to mention everyone present
>> at
>>> the protest: "Many local youth and students
>>> participated in the anti-Phelps Brookline protest
>> as
>>> well as members of the AFL-CIO Pride at Work,
>>> Anarchist Black Cross, the Communist Party USA,
>> Gay
>>> and Lesbian Labor Activist Network, the
>>> International
>>> Action Center, the International Socialist
>>> Organization, Fight Imperialism Stand Together
>>> (FIST),
>>> SEIU Local 509, Stonewall Warriors, UNITE HERE
>> Local
>>> 26, USWA Local 8751, the Women’s Fightback Network
>>> and
>>> Workers World Party."
>>>
>>> I think he was very careful mentioning everyone
>>> there
>>> instead of excluding some groups because of
>>> conflicts
>>> with their ideology. That is good writing to me.
>>>
>>> peace,
>>> sofia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- Pete Stidman <pstidman at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't think it would be fair to ban anyone
>> from
>>>> the
>>>> possibility of getting a centered article
>> without
>>>> first coaching them on improving the quality of
>>> the
>>>> article.
>>>>
>>>> We know Bryan writes from a certain perspective,
>>> but
>>>> we don't know that he is tied to limiting his
>>> scope
>>>> to
>>>> that perspective.  Maybe he would cover these
>>> other
>>>> major things if someone like sharpie emailed him
>>>> about
>>>> the oversight.
>>>>
>>>> We could see how he reacts to this sort of
>> thing.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We may not like his politics but his coverage is
>>>> fairly good, especially his choices of what to
>>>> cover.
>>>> And people have been known to change.  No one in
>>> our
>>>> group has ever had a real conversation with this
>>> guy
>>>> or even met him in person, am I right?
>>>>
>>>> -Pete
>>>>
>>>> --- Matthew Williams <mw21 at mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sharpie, you raise interesting issues
>> vis-a-vis
>>>>> Pfeifer. We've had
>>>>> issues with him before. He once did a report
>> on
>>> a
>>>>> protest and really
>>>>> played up the involvement of WWP and its front
>>>>> groups, listing a whole
>>>>> bunch of them and very few other groups (if
>>>>> any)--Pete e-mailed him
>>>>> about this and apparently Pfeifer got really
>>>> upset,
>>>>> although in future
>>>>> articles he didn't play the same game--not
>> until
>>>>> recently with this
>>>>> Phelps article anyway. And there was a
>> question
>>> of
>>>>> factual accuracy
>>>>> with a previous article of his as well, where
>> he
>>>>> blew something totally
>>>>> out of proportion--somebody being shoved into
>>>>> somebody being punched or
>>>>> something like that.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other side of the coin, he is one of
>> our
>>>> more
>>>>> prolific writers
>>>>> and I fear we wouldn't have any coverage of
>> some
>>>>> important events if it
>>>>> weren't for him.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are thus left in the odd position of
>> relying
>>> on
>>>> a
>>>>> group--Workers
>>>>> World Party/International Action
>>>>> Center/ANSWER/insert front group
>>>>> here--that many of us don't like or trust (and
>>>>> although Pfeifer seems
>>>>> to be their main writer, other WWP people have
>>>>> contributed articles as
>>>>> well) for much of our coverage. I have often
>>> found
>>>>> myself wishing a
>>>>> member of some local group I actually trust
>> took
>>>> as
>>>>> much time as
>>>>> Pfeifer to report on events. But I suppose WWP
>>> can
>>>>> assign people to
>>>>> certain tasks in a way more democratic groups
>>>> can't.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, we could just stop featuring his articles
>>> out
>>>> of
>>>>> concern for their
>>>>> accuracy--but then we'd not have coverage of
>>>>> important events. I'm
>>>>> frankly ambivalent, although if most people
>> felt
>>>>> like we shouldn't
>>>>> feature anything by Pfeifer or other WWP
>> members
>>>> in
>>>>> the future, I
>>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
> 		
> ____________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Sports
> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
> http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Boston-editorial mailing list
> Boston-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-editorial
>