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

[Pete Stidman]

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