[Boston-editorial] Bryan Pfeifer

[Pete Stidman]

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 
> > > wouldn't argue.
> > > 
> > > -- Matt
> > > 
> > > On Jun 16, 2005, at 1:03 PM, sharpie at riseup.net
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I'll be attending. I'll also write up a report
> > and
> > > work with the 
> > > > author of
> > > > the previous article in order to make it more
> > > fitting. I think it is a
> > > > really important event and should be featured,
> > if
> > > a stronger article is
> > > > written about it.
> > > >
> > > > Also, thanks whoever hid red herring's idiocy.
> > > >
> > > > Lastly, I have some questions for the group
> > > regarding features. The
> > > > initial feature that caused me to think abotu
> > this
> > > is Bryan Pfeifer's
> > > > article re: the Phelps event.
> > > >
> > > > I was also at this event, in fact I was
> > assaulted
> > > by officer 58700, 
> > > > along
> > > > with a number of other individuals. My issue
> is
> > > that, while the story
> > > > itself doesn't appear to have any real
> profound
> > > factual errors, it 
> > > > really
> > > > is just a reportback by an IAC operative, and
> > > totally fails to mention 
> > > > a
> > > > number of the most notable events of that day,
> > for
> > > example the fact 
> > > > that
> > > > no less than 3 individuals were assaulted in
> no
> > > less than 5 incidents 
> > > > by a
> > > > plainclothes officer.
> > > >
> > > > At least one of the socialist/authoritarian
> > group
> > > members assaulted
> > > > members of the Phelps crew and grabbed their
> > signs
> > > away.
> > > >
> > > > White Revolution's relatively new, but
> > burgeoning,
> > > New England chapter 
> > > > was
> > > > also present.
> > > >
> > > > All of these major details, much more
> > interesting
> > > than the plain "some
> > > > people showed up, they yelled at some
> > > bigots/fascists, and we won!" 
> > > > format
> > > > of this piece.
> > > >
> > > > anyway, i just wanted to get folks thoughts
> > about
> > > this, as we are 
> > > > trying
> > > > to revitalize and rethink the editorial
> process.
> > > >
> > > > peace
> > > > sharpie
> > > >
> > > >> I have to agree that this is more of an event
> > > announcement than a news
> > > >> story or a commentary or anything like that.
> > Once
> > > the meeting happens,
> > > >> it would be cool to have a report on it
> though.
> > > Is anyone planning to
> > > >> go anyway? -- Matt
> > > >>
> > > >> On Jun 16, 2005, at 11:10 AM, Sofia JarrinT
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I agree with Jon.  It reads more of an
> > > invitation to
> > > >>> people to participate in their next meeting
> > and
> > > >>> survey, which I think it's great.  But it
> > really
> > > >>> doesn't qualify as an article.  I would love
> > to
> > > see,
> > > >>> like Jon said, something about concrete
> goals
> > > reached.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> peace,
> > > >>> sofia
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --- "Jonathan D. Proulx" <jon at csail.mit.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I'm ambivalent about hte article as it
> > stands. 
> > > It's
> > > >>>> more than an
> > > >>>> event anouncement but not much, I think it
> > > would be
> > > >>>> stronger if it was
> > > >>>> more specific about what whas accomplished
> > 
> === message truncated ===
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> _______________________________________________
> Boston-editorial mailing list
> Boston-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
>
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-editorial
> 


		
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com