[IMC-Boston-Editorial] Right wing articles HElP!!!

[visnusdream at juno.com]

(Please excuse typos; no time to proof read)
OK Sofia, we need someone else to decide. BIMC posts things that someone might call "mouth piece" Op-ed stuff all the time. This time you just don;t agree with the politics. That's not enough of a reason to hide these two  articles. 
First let me say I am completely confused because, you didn't hide the Washington post Op-ed, which you dislike. Its still on the news wire. I'm moving it to the other press. I assume you still want to hide it. Here is why I think you should not:
You quote the piece, "Among the most damning evidence to emerge were the ISB’s connections to two high-profile radical Muslims, and the fact that the mosque’s longtime leader was a co-founder and former vice-president of a virulently anti-American and anti-Semitic organization that apparently raised truckloads of cash to support Islamic terrorist."
Right now the people who raised the money for the mosque are fighting in court to have a judge declare the writer's opinion invalid. So far however these wight wingers have defeated this mosque. It is a hot topic. Are you saying that the issue is not in dispute? That people in our communities don;t disagree about it? I think they do and I think that if we restrict ourselves to only allowing one voice on this issue, we are no better than fox news. I am moving the article and all the comments to the otherpress. We should just be done with it then. People can comment on it, discredit it, argue about it, etc. 
Regarding your hiding of the Hamas article: http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display/49821/index.php
I want to re-instate it in the other press. Here are a few reasons why.
Your reasoning is contradictory: 

"I don't mind having articles from a conservative point of view because I see how having a dialogue about the issues is important, but articles from Front Page Magazine (http://www.frontpagemag.com/index.asp) are outright propaganda."  You don;t mind having article from a conservtive point of view unless they really disagree with you. Then you call them propaganda. As far as I can tell this article contains no factual errors. Its just biased. So is much of what we publish.  Look at http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display/49731/index.php
This is an article saying that an anti-Radical Islamic group is racist, and calling for support to protest it. We are allowing someone to make a complete generalization, with no factual information to back it up. It is one group's opinion of another group, and nothing more.  How about this one:http://boston.indymedia.org/feature/display/48501/index.php We featured this report back from the anti wall demo. The message is clear, BIMC or its writers support the anti-apartheifd wall Isreal is building. That's fine. I took my kid to an anti-wall prtest and he held up a big sign. But there are people trying to explain why Isreal wants to have a wall. Is that voice to be completely silenced because we don;t agree? This article about HAMAS has a ton of quotes from Hamas literature. Hamas are scary radical Islamic Fundamentalists. They may be right to resist Isreali occupation. They may be the most significant political force in Palestine with a backbone, but they are still extremely violent and have few positive things to say about liberty and justice, especially for women, and minority religious groups. The article is a realistic addition to our Other press. It is one voice among many and as far as I can tell lacks no factual errors. I want to re-instate it as other press.    Recently, there was a debate on democracy now between  Dershowitz and Chomsky. Is Amy Goodman a mouth piece for the racist Zionists because she let's Dershowitz speak on her show? I don't think so. She let him speak and then had someone counter his claims. That's what our comment section is for. We would let some Cindy Sheehan essay stand in our other press but not a Washington post OP ed or a something from Front page magazine, becasue we don;t agree with the politics. I think its hypocritical and it lacks journalistic integrity. (Please, don;t take offence. I fully sympathize with your position but I feel I must speak plainly.) Unless there are factual errors or blatant distortion of truth, we should let the debate rage. Otherwise, we are nothing but cheerleaders for left wing protest groups.Love and respect,Jamie  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/boston-editorial/attachments/20060125/b6bb0a4d/attachment-0001.html