[IMC-Boston-Editorial] consensus/IMC principles of unity

[Pete Stidman]

Hey y'all.

Just adding in my big mouth again.  Would also love to
hear from folks who don't normally speak.  

I resent the implication that I represent corporate
media or that I want to make Indymedia corporate.  

Only a few of you on the other side of the river have
the foggiest notion of what the Jamaica Plain Gazette
is, and you have used this framework created in your
head as a way to discount my opinion.  The Gazette is
edited by a long-time activist woman with strong ties
to JP.  I have published articles concerning the
environment, env. racism, tranportation, tenants
rights, labor, healthcare reform, gentrification,
Katrina, police brutality, and more.  Why not
investigate this before assuming the worst?  

I want Indymedia to serve the Boston community.  Not
solely the Boston anarchist, WWP, spartacus,
Socialist, Maoist and communist communities.  

Indymedia is disconnected, almost totally, from the
hardcore activists that have consistently fought for
low-income peoples rights in this city and the
low-income people themselves.  It is disconnected from
issues that effect people of color and their
neighborhoods.  It is disconnected from almost all
local issues except maybe labor.  

I want to connect these people, the people we often
refer to as those without media access, to a resource
that can help them transform this city.  That is what
I thought we were all about.

It has nothing to do with wanting to emulate
corporations, it does have to do with making a
difference.  

We can replace the corporate media with a media that
is open to community involvement.  A much more
inclusive, flexible, and representative media.  A
media that is open to and creates change.

That is why I am concerned when people steer us
towards being computer based, or why I question giving
away resources to the corporate press. 

I consider Democracy Now, Sounds of Dissent,
Paper Tiger Girls, Prometheus Radio, the NY
Indypendent, etc. to be part of indymedia in spirit. 
All of these projects include indymedia folks. 

The NY indypendent is in fact, directly under the
Indymedia umbrella. People might trash talk it, but
those folks who have kept that thing running are
personal friends of mine, they educated me on how to
make a newspaper run using consensus and still meeting
the demands of the biz.  They're hard-working
dedicated activists who work all the time for peanuts.
 

HArumph.  IT's good though- to talk about this
difference at its base instead of battling on the
small things all the time...

-Pete


--- Sofia JarrinT <sofiajt at yahoo.com> wrote:

> hi,
> I guess what is at heart here is our different views
> of what the IMC is based on, its mission & vision,
> and
> how loyal we want to be to that vision.
> 
> What attracts me personally the most to the IMC is
> that it is:
> a. organic 
> b. community-oriented
> c. non-hierarchical
> d. open-source & inclusive (as opposed to creating
> exclusiveness)
> 
> I think by its nature it provides space for
> different
> factions of the non-corporate community (activist,
> anarchist, socialist, leftist, etc.) to communicate,
> promote dialogue, and produce media.
> 
> Honestly, I can't see the IMC ever replacing
> corporate
> media because by its mere nature (non-corporate,
> non-hierarchical, and community-based), it will
> never
> become the biased, self-serving monster that
> corporate
> media is.
> 
> But that it's greatest strength. It is physically
> and
> organically training and educating whole generations
> about: 1)what's media, 2)how to produce media, 3)how
> to build an alternative media movement.
> 
> 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 preferrable model because it allows for
> new generations to come in to learn about and make
> media.  
> 
> On consensus, I think the ideal of having 100%
> agreement on something is hierarchical in itself
> because it means that those w/power (read:stronger
> personalities) will try to mold the group to their
> own
> image. That's not how an inclusive society is built,
> in my opinion. I rather hear more from those who
> usually don't speak up and might have much better
> ideas of what a sustainable community is.
> 
> >From the "Video Primer" (Video Collective volunteer
> manual in development):
> 
> When Boston IMC is considering a proposal that
> directly affects the time you have invested in the
> organization, and with which you strongly disagree,
> there are ways to express dissent without blocking
> the
> groups desired direction. In order of seriousness,
> they are:
> 
> * reservations: “I’m not prepared to vote.  May we
> clarify on what exactly is being proposed?”
> * non-support: “I don't see the need for this, but
> I'll go along.”
> * standing aside: “I personally cannot approve this,
> but I won't block others from doing it.”
> * withdrawing: “I am removing myself from this
> decision for personal reasons.”
> * blocking: “I feel this decision goes against the
> founding principles of the IMC.”
> 
> respectfully,
> --Sofia
> 
> 
> 	
> 		
> __________________________________ 
> 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
> 



	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com