[Boston-editorial] re: the William Rivers Pitt "article"

Mon May 9 21:12:21 PDT 2005

I share common ground with all that has been said so
far. Amen to your views on the matter Sharpie I
definitely share your sentiment (not just on Pitt but
on a certain Aimee Smith whos not, big surprise,
turned the whole thing to be about her) I do disaggree
though with idea of taking it down for alot of
reasons. 
Even if he has this sappy Liberal-elite agenda I don't
think we should be regulating stuff purely on agenda
because last I checked weve centered a few articles
recently by a certain head of a certain front group
for a certain Stalinist group whos views i despise way
more than Pitts. 

Now they only thing that did concern me about it was
how close it danced on the line between an opinion
piece & flat-out propaganda (I mean he actually
brought a story about a terminally-ill guy into it!)

The main reason I support keeping it in the center is
that, now correct me if im wrong, but it appears to
have been submitted by Pitt himself. If such is the
case I find that incredibly interesting because it
seems to say alot about what BostonIMC is or appears
to be. if he sent it here its because he knows that if
he really wants to address the the people like those
who opposed him that night then the usual echo-chamber
venues of the Liberal-intelligensia that he gets paid
to write for werent going to be all that useful. 
what transpired was alot of healthy, open discussion. 
(with the exception of a few usual trolls and one
self-aggrandizing psycho  whos at least posting for
a-far) Now i do think a well put together response
piece would be ideal for the center column as well
(Sharpie?) but Im not worried about IMC being
percieved as some sorta Liberal mouthpiece cuz the
fact is was sent here indicates that we arent that at
all.

and hey mabye his sappy call for leftist unity may
lead to mass convergence of him & Aimee Smith & the 2
hecklers (if theyre who i think they are) & the
democratic party & the WWP/ANSWER & all the other
cancerous elements of "the left" in that they all
aggree to go the fuck away? 
never rule out miracles...
-tl    

--- Pete Stidman <pstidman at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hey all,
> 
>   just want to weigh in on this one.  I think this
> was
> an interesting article not only for william pitts
> perspective, but from the perspective of the
> hecklers,
> who are amply sounded out in the comments.  
> 
> The fact that it has 20 plus comments points to the
> fact that our readers were at least interested
> enough
> to read it and I really object to trying to narrow
> the
> political spectrum that our website is open too.  We
> should be conscious of the fact that one of the
> potentialities of our site is to increase
> communication between all of Boston's various groups
> and activists and people.  
> 
> While I'd definitely be leery of posting right-wing
> slants I think we should be hosting a healthy debate
> and a forum of ideas instead of creating a site like
> NYC's that limits all of it's articles to a certain
> perspective.  
> 
> It goes back to something Sharpie said at the last
> meeting.  We should be point of access, not a
> platform
> for our own ambitions, or, I think, viewpoints.  
> 
> Posting this article where comments could be had
> helped to clarify the issue for folks, and it did
> happen here.  Just because we post it or feature it,
> doesn't necessarily mean we agree with it, it just
> means as matt said, it was well written and argued
> and
> had some timely relevance for Boston readers.  
> 
> -Pete
> 
> 
> --- Matthew Williams <mw21 at mindspring.com> wrote:
> > Uh, well, lots of people use the term
> "progressive"
> > in an expansive way 
> > to include everyone from left-liberals to
> radicals.
> > It's how I usually 
> > use the term.
> > 
> > But to get to the substance of your point, if you
> > want to write a 
> > response to Pitt, I see no problem with that. I'd
> be
> > uncomfortable 
> > taking the feature down, just because one member
> of
> > the collective 
> > disagrees with it. I don't think our criteria for
> > featuring a 
> > commentary is whether we agree with it, but
> whether
> > it's intelligent 
> > and well written, coming from a progressive
> > perspective, and have some 
> > local connection. This fits all three of those
> > criteria. I recall at 
> > least one instance where I featured a commentary I
> > completely disagreed 
> > with because I thought it fit those three
> criteria.
> > 
> > I'll admit I don't know the details of the debate,
> > but from what he 
> > says, he doesn't support the occupation so much as
> > he doesn't think 
> > pulling out without a plan is viable. I don't
> agree
> > with that position, 
> > but I know serious progressives, who adamantly
> > oppose the occupation, 
> > who do have that position. If people want to
> > respectfully critique that 
> > position, I think that's all to the good, but
> > ostracizing progressives 
> > with that view isn't going to get us very far. I
> > don't particularly 
> > want to debate the merits of the position here
> > anyway, but the fact is 
> > we have no party line and we should feature a
> range
> > of progressive 
> > views. Not that I would want to feature something
> by
> > Christopher 
> > Hitchens defending US imperialism in the name of
> > socialism, but the 
> > Pitt article doesn't do that. The commentary isn't
> > even about his 
> > opinions on the occupation, but the state of the
> > left.
> > 
> > Oh, and you should be getting an e-mail that you
> can
> > respond to, to 
> > join this list.
> > 
> > -- Matt
> > 
> > On May 9, 2005, at 11:52 AM, sharpie at riseup.net
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > hey folks... I think that what William Rivers
> Pitt
> > says in this 
> > > "article"
> > > is not exactly "accurate." there were no
> > "progressives" heckling him.
> > > there were "radicals" heckling him. and they
> were
> > heckling him because
> > > he's an asshole, and was using the podium to
> sell
> > magazines 
> > > essentially.
> > > the number of times he made reference to the
> > magazine that he is now
> > > working for disgusted me.
> > >
> > > He supports the continuance of the Occupation! I
> > mean, what the fuck?!
> > >
> > > anyway... I understand that maybe we need to be
> > "fair" and so I would
> > > propose either taking this self-serving shit off
> > the features column, 
> > > or
> > > we take it off until I can look over the video
> of
> > what actually 
> > > happened,
> > > and write a response to him that is "fair" and
> > based on the "facts" and
> > > not on William Rivers Pitt defending himself.
> > >
> > > peace
> > > sharpie
> > >
> > > also, can i get added to the editorial list?
> > thanks!
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> > 
> 
> 
> 		
> Discover Yahoo! 
> Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and
> more. Check it out! 
> http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html
> _______________________________________________
> Boston-editorial mailing list
> Boston-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
>
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-editorial
> 

"And I say to my people's masters
Beware,
Beware of the thing that is coming
Beware of the risen people"
- Padraig Pearse, "The Rebel"

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ 