[IMC-Boston-Editorial] The Ideas

[visnusdream at juno.com]

(From an ongoing Editorial list discussion)

OK 
I think Pete has a good point about the Dispatch list being somewhat of an asset that we might not want to necessarily give away to people who aren't actually even considering doing an independently produced story. I think his perspective is especially valuable because he is one of the few of us who actually posts real story ideas, rather than event announcements etc. 

However, I don't think anybody is actually coming to the IMC for this type of thing right now. Let's hope they someday do.

This particular issue seems to indicate a fundamental difference in ideology about what we want the IMC to be and become. 
In other words, do we want the IMC website to become a place that actually features so-called First Time Exclusives, or not. Do we see that as a realistic vision of the future? At some point, do we actually want the IMC to compete with other news outlets as an average person's primary source of information? 
If so, then I think its pretty clear that we should at least require that people register to have access to our dispatch list. 
I mean, in the future, if we repeatedly find that someone is using our dispatch list for story ideas and then just selling the stories for a profit, is that in keeping with IMC principles? 

Is saying that we don't care as long as a story gets covered a little too idealistic?

If an IMC contributor shoots film or something, would we just say that its OK for somebody to take that footage and sell it without giving credit to the person who actually did the work? 

Is dispatch a similar commodity?
If not why? 

Story ideas aren't free, they take work. 


Here are some other thoughts I've had about all the lists being so-called "public." 
I don't know how people access the archives but recent trash sifters have caused me to wonder if there isn't some way to put a delay on things being made available.(Probably not)
What is the point of removing someone from a list for disrupting our work, only to have them sift thru the trash, as soon as its produced, so they can post it all over our site, which is just a waste of time for us to clean up? 

I am all for transparency, but I think there is also a need to get things done and speak freely without people being able to intentionally interrupt the process by personally antagonizing our contributors, especially new people, who have nothing to do with the enemies BIMC has made in the past. 

This is delicate issue and I would like to see a more thoughtful discourse about it than just assertions that we must be transperant. I want full transperacy but I want it to be implemented more thoughtfully. 

For the record, I am for tighter restrictions on all the list archives and the lists in general. I am very concerned that things be open but I do not think it makes any sense to just let our discussions be a free for all. We wouldn;t let people disrupt our meetings or publish our stories in their own name. 

We should not let people inimical to the IMC, or just disinterested in the IMC mission, to steal for personal use, the hard work of our contributors.

The other issue:
As I look at the surface of the on-line vs. meeting debate, I like idea that more discussion take place on line. My big concern however, is that compromise will be difficult to reach on-line. Already, I see heads butting. Pete thinks he's not being heard and it seems difficult to assuage his fears, although certainly some have tried. 
I'm not sure what the nature of discussion on the Internet will be in the future but compromise is the soul of consensus. Will we be able to do that on-line? 

When we can't, we will have to meet, even if it is for "one small issue."

Pete's idea that some items are too important or contentious to be decided on line is valid, however obviously some things don't fall in that category. I think we should discuss issues elaborately on-line and if there is an obvious disagreement about a policy we can take it to a meeting.  

Sharpie has also raised the concern that some people may not have computers and are thus excluded. Unfortunately, its not a perfect world. It takes one person an hour and a half to come to a meeting, somebody else can't afford a computer. We should just get as much done as we can. We can't wait for our discussions to be convenient for everyone. We do our best and we must move on. 

Love and respect,
Jamie 
PS Shouldn't this discussion be on the discuss list so that other memebers can have access to it?