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

Tue May 10 08:10:59 PDT 2005

Yeah man, a slip of the tongue, i'm all for consensus
and always will be, of course.  Your making me feel
like I'm walking on eggshells man.  

Not to say that we cant ever but The reasons we don't
have a quorum or waiting period right now are, as I
understand them:

1.) because essentially all the current editors trust
each other to put up stuff that fits.  we have our
arguments, like a recent spat about press releases,
but they get resolved and we keep going and it's
worked for about a year now.  

2.) we want things to go up fast.  If i had had to
wait to post the story about the tufts hate thing, we
wouldn't have scooped the majority of the news media
on it.  Sometimes news can get stale, whether we agree
with the phenomenon or not, it happens.  

3.) we don't want to be judging things for solely
political reasons, meaning in this context that, we
want people to feel like they can put up things they
are interested in instead of having to find the lowest
common denominator.

4.) we want to keep the center column moving, our
intermediate goal is one article per day.  When we
have that, there's a reason to come back daily, and
hopefully more people will bookmark us. 

That said we all seem to have a sense (most times) of
what will be controversial and folks bring that up to
the group before they post it.  Like this William Pitt
article.  There was a sense that it would be
controversial.  Matt originally suggested it would be
interesting for our readers but he wasn't quite sure,
I think Petrina, Sofia and/or maybe someone else
seconded it and then I said what the hell, most of us
seem to think it's worth it so I put it up.  

I probably wouldn't have volunteered to put it up
myself but what the hell?  There's obviously
commenters on both sides of the issue, I think that
means it was successful.  And besides it's already
getting pushed down, a new article now would push it
out of sight mostly.  

Now that youre on the editorial list you can start to
see how we do things, get involved, and start to
slowly change things.  But have a little patience and
see how things work before you start proposing radical
changes because what were doing now has vastly
improved the website in my personal view.  And it's
just good policy to see how and if it's working first.

Before we changed it we had a centered article once
every one or two weeks.  Now we have doubled or
tripled that.  Largely it was because of a looser
center column policy.  

I also realize where your coming from.  Sometimes we
get a rep in the anarchist community for being
"fucking liberals" or some such.  Well that was the
reason I was pushing so hard for indymedia at the
anarchist summit (although I totally think you were
right in criticizing me for the discussion there, I
was a little too gung ho)  

The problem isn't that we post the occasional
liberally thing, it's that we have no consistent
anarchist writers aside from, as far as I know, Matt,
Homefries with the audio, and Myself.  

What we might need is to get some of those NEFAC and
other kids to start posting more.  

I've had some success from encouraging folks by
centering after the summit.  That's when homefries
started posting and CIPO-RFM too.  plus some various
others.  

the more we can get the balance over to radicals the
happier I will be, but at any time we work with what
we get.  tabling at more anarchist events would be a
good thing too.  

-Pete

--- sharpie at riseup.net wrote:

> This is my main issue with the Pitt "article." I
> don't consider someone
> whining about how they feel they were misrepresented
> or mistreated at an
> event where they "stole the agenda to sell their
> magazine" to be news. I
> don't consider the fact that it borders on being a
> massive falsehood to be
> newsworthy. In the same way that TL considers it
> inappropriate for Aimee
> to do this, I would contend this is exactly what
> Pitt did the night of the
> event, and what he continues to do by sending this
> to his various readers
> who then post it to the newswire or send it to
> boston editorial who then
> put it on the center column. Maybe Pitt did go out
> of his way to send it
> directly to the Boston Indymedia editorial list, but
> I find it highly
> unlikely.
> 
> Next question about editorial policy, do we have a
> wait period for dissent
> on a piece? i.e. if i say hey let's post this
> article about Iraq, and
> everyone says cool i like it! or at least enough
> people to form a quorum
> say this, then cool lets post it. but maybe people
> can't get to their
> email for a few days, and might oppose the piece,
> but once its up don't
> necessarily feel comfortable asking for it to be
> taken down, you know? So
> I'm just wondering if we can instate a sort of
> waiting period, I would
> rather put "news" up and particularly news that
> everyone feels comfortable
> with, or at least a quorum feels comfortable with,
> if we can consent that
> it is an appropriate way to make that kind of
> decision.
> 
> One last thing, Pete said in an earlier post that
> the editorial group
> would "vote" Jon and sofia in, is he just using vote
> instead of saying
> consense?
> 
> peace
> sharpie
> 
> 
> > 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/
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Boston-editorial mailing list
> Boston-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
>
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-editorial
> 

Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html