[IMC-Boston-Editorial] idea for Dispatch list

[Pete Stidman]

I'm just saying that, from a writer who earns money's
perspective, there are some things I wouldn't post to
dispatch if I didn't know that only good folks would
benefit.  

That isn't to say that I don't want them to get
coverage.  But I'd rather see the credit go to a small
time new writer on an incredible story than to the
same old established hack at the globe.  

Part of our mission as I see it, is education to help
young writers on to their feet, and a more exclusive
list could be an advantage for them.  

Many of us on this list have leisure time in which to
write.  I sure don't though and if we're going to try
and involve people like Dave, who wants to get more
jobs as a writer, then we should really consider this
other perspective. 

There's also a majority in Boston who are more
motivated towards things that can earn them a living,
rather than serve as a hobby. These same people are
the ones we often refer to as "the voiceless." 

There's just a lot to consider here. 

Anyway, it's clear this is not a simple cut and dry
issue. I'm not going to be stubborn in a meeting
situation, but I would like the group to consider it
in our decision making body.  OK?

-Pete




--- Svea Eppler <sveasca at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> 
>      I think that having the "mainstream" media lurk
> on our lists and maybe "get the story" is awesome!
> Isn't part of the point of doing our work making it
> more mainstream so that it's actually addressed by
> the
> powers that be? Isn't coverage of events the whole
> point? Even if it's the local channel 7 that goes to
> cover it? I know that we don't have enough
> volunteers
> to cover all these events, having other media
> sources
> use our list to learn about them seems like a grand
> idea.
> 
>      Also, anyone can subscribe to this list, it's
> just locked for some reason at subscribe only. I
> subscribed an email address to it earlier today to
> look through the archives, it was a simple click and
> following a link, then I was in. I immediately
> unsubscribed after checking and think that it's
> "private" status seems sortof random and unneeded.
> It
> felt like just another level of administration for
> something that should be open to the public anyways.
> 
> I vote for opening it up to non-members also.
> 
>      Cheers.
> 
>      S.
> 
> 
> 
> --- "Jonathan D. Proulx" <jon at csail.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 12:25:53PM -0700, Pete
> > Stidman wrote:
> > 
> > :The fact that maybe mainstream or other
> journalists
> > :are using it. Do we want to make it a value of
> > :participating in indymedia, do we want to use it
> as
> > an
> > :outreach tool, or just let whoever tap in?
> > 
> > :My point is that I wouldn't myself throw a scoop
> > onto
> > :the dispatch list if I thought my competitors
> (the
> > :ones I don't like) are listening, or the globe,
> or
> > the
> > :herald, or so on. 
> > 
> > given this concern do private archives help?
> > 
> > Interesting point, but is the dispatch list
> > membership
> > monitored in anyway, could they just hook on with
> a
> > pseudonym if they
> > wanted? 
> > 
> > I'm subscribed to dispatch, but honestly don't
> > follow much.  Do
> > "scoop" stories really go that way, atleast ones
> > that main stream
> > media would also be interested in.
> > 
> > For my part I'm not concerned about this, the
> Herald
> > makeing a
> > perverse mockery of an event today rather than
> > tomorrow just doesn't
> > change my world and I'm not interested in
> competing
> > with corporate
> > media so much as ignoring them, but that's my
> deal.
> > 
> > conversely is having it "members only" really a
> > hinderence?
> > 
> > I don't remeber my password, but typically mailman
> > lists mail you your
> > password once a month, and though I can't find the
> > damned button, I'm
> > pretty sure there's a way to have it mail you your
> > password on demand.
> > 
> > 
> > :There's always things to consider and as I've
> said
> > :many many many many many many many many many
> times,
> > I
> > :do not agree with the idea of making significant
> > :changes to how we do things on line.  I think it
> is
> > :counter to the idea of consensus, and counter to
> > the
> > :idea of participation, and it encourages people
> to
> > :skip out on important meetings.  
> > 
> > I rather strenuously disagree, but that another
> > topic...
> > 
> > :I guess there are some things that are so
> trifling
> > :that we can do online.  Those would be things
> that
> > :would not be controversial in the farthest
> > fantasies
> > :of the mind.  But this does seem like somethign
> we
> > :should discuss together, so we can make the best
> > :decision about it and consider other peoples
> > opinions
> > :on it.  
> > 
> > Prior to your views above that's pretty much where
> > this fell for
> > me.  Given your opposition/concern and the current
> > consensus on
> > consensus process, seems this would be an in
> meeting
> > decision.
> > 
> > -Jon
> > _______________________________________________
> > Boston-editorial mailing list
> > Boston-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
> >
>
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-editorial
> > 
> 
> 
> "Once is by accident, twice is coincidence, three
> times is enemy action!" - good military advice for
> the modern media guerilla
> 
> 
> 	
> 		
> __________________________________ 
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Boston-editorial mailing list
> Boston-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
>
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-editorial
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs