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

[Pete Stidman]

I like that idea.  I t might be hard to find folks in
other orgs that want to publicily "out" themselves
since anarchists get such bad press and their enemies
could use it against them and such, so make sure they
are aware and all.  

One thing I did on the riyadh article and I think I
might start doing more often is checking back with
folks after it is written to make sure I quoted them
right and such.  It's good cause no sources then have
any good reason to get pissed off when the story comes
out, and it thus keeps em happy for the next time we
do a story on them.  

It's good to read stuff out of context tho so they
don't start critiqueing your writing style or other
such.  

-Pete

--- Matthew Williams <mw21 at mindspring.com> wrote:

> Just to be clear, Pitt never submitted it directly
> to the site or to 
> us. I got the article via Boston Mobilization's
> e-mail list and thought 
> it was interesting, although I wasn't at the
> original event, so I have 
> no way of assessing Pitt's behavior. Like Pete said,
> I sent it on to 
> the list to check in with people before we featured
> it.
> 
> I agree that a waiting time on articles is a bad
> idea. I second 
> everything Pete said about wanting to be timely and
> all that. The 
> current system we have, of making individual
> decisions based on the 
> editorial guidelines we arrived at by consensus,
> works well. We have 
> surprisingly few disagreements considering the
> number of articles we 
> center. Besides, if we discussed every article we
> were considering 
> centering, the traffic on this list would get
> absolutely insane and 
> it's pretty high volume as is.
> 
> On the whole liberal-anarchist thing, I think part
> of the problem may 
> be that some anarchists think the IMC should be an
> anarchist project. I 
> suspect in some cities that's basically what it is,
> but in Boston--even 
> though a lot of us are anarchists--we want it to be
> something for all 
> progressive/leftists/whatever-you-want-to-call-them.
> I think some 
> anarchists may decide that we're too moderate
> because not everything we 
> do is from an anarchist perspective, like some other
> IMCs. (Even most 
> of what I write is not from an explicitly
> anarchist--or pacifist or 
> engaged -Buddhist or feminist--perspective, since I
> try to write in a 
> way that would appeal to a broad spectrum of
> progressives.) I actually 
> get worried sometimes because so many of the people
> who post comments 
> are fairly strident anarchists, who go after
> liberals guns blazing. I 
> worry it creates a hostile environment. Part of me
> would really like to 
> enforce rules requiring people to be civil to each
> other in their 
> comments, but I suspect the negative response to
> that would create more 
> problems that it would solve. I know BAAM also got
> ticked off at us 
> during the DNC because we did articles on coalition
> that organized the 
> People's Party and the folks organizing the Boston
> Social Forum, but 
> never had time to do one on the more radical
> anti-DNC coalition, whose 
> name I am forgetting now.
> 
> I have an idea for an article I may do this summer
> that should make 
> some of the anarchists who are frustrated with us a
> little happier 
> though. I got it after Sharpie commented that he was
> worried that the 
> article in which I talked about "anarchist youth"
> would reinforce 
> negative stereotypes about anarchists. There didn't
> seem to really be a 
> way to adequately address it in an article like that
> without going on a 
> total tangent, so I thought why not write an article
> about anarchists 
> in the Boston area? I would interview folks in
> groups like BAAM, NEFAC, 
> Food Not Bombs, as well as anarchists who are
> involved in groups that 
> are not actually or primarily anarchist groups. I
> think that, done 
> well, that could do much to dispell any negative
> stereotypes about 
> anarchists among our non-anarchist readers.
> 
> -- Matt
> 
> On May 10, 2005, at 11:10 AM, Pete Stidman wrote:
> 
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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