[IMC-Boston-Editorial] Jon, Sofia, Pete et al.

[Sofia JarrinT]

Just a couple of things:

* my earlier email did not imply that Indymedia can't
be professional.  It can and it has proven to do so.
The Indypendent is a good example and as a matter of
fact, there are at least 2 Indymedia members that are
paid staff on Democracy Now.

My point is that Indymedia will always contain
"amateurs" because the whole basis of it, in my
opinion, is giving a voice to the voiceless... That
is, members of the community who for economic reasons,
are completely down the chain in their accessibility
and opportunities to make media.  And I don't think
that's a bad thing. Quite on the contrary. How
beautiful it is to have all these "amateurs" learning
to make professional media. hell, I never worked on
video before and it's amazing all I've learned in just
a few months.  But I still consider myself an
"amateur".  sharpie's project in the Middle East is
professionalism...  

* On your question about the Dispatch List, based on
what I've said above, I think that by not making it
public, we're excluding all of those "amateurs" and
"professionals" to have access to what is already open
information.  After all, a good 99% of the press
releases is stuff that Pete, myself, and others
forward from already-existing groups.  That is, I get
most of my info from subscribing to other groups and
forward it to Indymedia.  I disagree they're only
"events" because I'm a true believer that they
represent public power (as opposed to private,
governmental, corporate).

Ideally, we will receive those press releases
directly...  But we need to do outreach for that. And
still then, I would favor for it to being open.

Inclusiveness and openness should not be a threat to
professionalism.

--Sofia

Ps: My previous email was *not* meant as an attack to
Pete or the Gazette. I'm sorry he took it personally.

--- "visnusdream at juno.com" <visnusdream at juno.com>
wrote:

> On the whole, I agree with Jon. However, he is right
> on when he points out the lack of structure when
> reaching decisions on-line. That seems to be the big
> concern. 
> 
> To me we are actually discussing different visions
> of what the BIMC is.
> 
> For instance, recently one member proposed that we
> have a consensus process around putting things in
> the Feature section of the website. Currently,
> editors can just do it without discussing it with
> anyone. This person felt the process was not
> "transparent" enough. 
> 
> So, while on the one hand some members want more
> discussion, there is also now a push towards more
> on-line discussion. Sometimes we waste our time with
> a lot of this discussion. I think all contributors,
> especially editors, should be empowered to do what
> they need to do in order to get things done. 
> 
> We have an open newswire, anyone can post, we want
> to empower the world, but we tend to dis-empower
> each other because we don't trust each other. 
> 
> Most of our conversations lately are about
> hypothetical problems.
> For instance, one group wants to open the Dispatch
> list archives to the world. Some of us have
> concerns; and now the entire issue has now become
> muddled with a conversation about whether we should
> even have the conversation on-line.
> In my opinion, I think we should get down to brass
> tacks:
> Some decisions are going to made by individuals,
> some decisions will be made on line, and if we are
> going to have face to face meetings, then obviously
> some decisions will take place then as well. I
> believe, that if we just trust the process, the
> right decisions will end up being made in the proper
> context. If you guys want to make the Dispatch list
> public and you bring it to the list, allowing
> several people to voice their concerns, and give
> ample room for dissent, then either one of us can
> block the move or you should should just do it.
> What's the big deal? 
> If Pete wants to block he can. He hasn't lost any
> power.
> Perhaps, we could add a little more structure to
> on-line decisions but I don't think we have to get
> too worried about it, as long as people are
> basically respectful of the fact that people need
> time to consider issues and nothing should sneak by
> with just one e-mail etc. 
> I mean, that's what we;ve been doing all along but
> we never talked about it. 
> 
> Finally, I need to comment of Sofia's last post. She
> writes, "Many people who work w/the IMC will move on
> to
> "better" things (Democracy Now, Sounds of Dissent,
> Paper Tiger Girls, Prometheus Radio, the NY
> Indypendent, etc.), and I think that's ok. 
> Actually,
> that is the preferable model because it allows for
> new generations to come in to learn about and make
> media." 
> 
> Jon also echoes her sentiments. 
> 
> Its obvious to me that the mood is something to the
> effect of, "IMC is not of a professional quality and
> never will be."  This attitude seems to be
> especially directed toward the website, with its
> open newswire, etc. 
> Both of your comments were made in the context of a
> discussion about the Dispatch list. I think its
> important to recognize that the dispatch list hopes
> to be of benefit for all the different aspects of
> the Collective, including Radio and Video, which
> perhaps have an image of being of "higher quality"
> somehow, simply because they are more controlled.
> 
> I think the website IS of a professional quality. I
> realize it is a little more rough around the edges,
> because it is not as censored, but really nobody has
> had this kind of forum before and I can't imagine a
> more inclusive and professional version of one. We
> let just about anyone say just about anything they
> want; but it is only one aspect of the collective.
> With IMC Web, Radio, Video, and hopefully more
> print, I see no reason why this movement can not
> become a serious player in the world of news and
> information. We are not trying to compete with
> Corporate Media, we have out grown them. We are
> reinventing the entire notion of news and
> professionalism. 
> I am ready to entertain ideas that we should follow
> Ted's advice that we make everything wide open, with
> regard to our assets, such as our dispatch list, but
> I want to hear recognition that this is a valuable
> asset. I want to hear people say that they want IMC
> to become HUGE!!! If you  think that being really
> radical and free is the  way to really have an
> impact, argue that. But please don;t tell me that
> IMC is just a training ground for "bigger and better
> things" and so it doesn't matter  if we just give
> away all our ideas and work to other people who have
> no Internet in supporting this project. I don't want
> to work with a bunch of amateurs, nor do I want to
> be considered one just because I work with IMC. The
> IMC should serve as training ground for people who
> go on and make the IMC a bigger and better place. My
> understanding of our vision is that we are trying to
> dissolve false hierarchies, not succumb to them. We
> are supposed to be creating a whole new paradigm.
>  
> In other words, I just want somebody to actually
> address Pete's real concerns. He is saying that your
> proposal threatens to impede the progressive growth
> and success of the IMC. Please, demonstrate to me
> that it does the opposite.
> 
> Please excuse any offenses I may have made.
> Love and respect,
> Jamie  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Boston-editorial mailing list
> Boston-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
>
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-editorial
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Music Unlimited 
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/