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

Wed Jan 25 13:18:32 PST 2006

hi there,

  It's not just the politics that I disagree with; it's the kind of  baseless defamatory politics that many conservatives are used to using.

  I don't think Indymedia in general is a centrist tool; it's definitely  a tool for people who work on social justice.  Therefore, I don't  think re-posting articles from the extreme right serves our purpose or  our what our audience expects from us. The mainstream is mostly  controlled by people w/power (such as Horowitz) and Indymedia is  supposed to be representive of an underrespresented community.

  The article on Hamas, "Hamas Rising And Their Promise to Exterminate  the Jews" is not a good article. It's a biased article. I see your  point about Hamas, but this is propaganda, not a good article. I would  do the same with an article that is trying to demonize Jewish people  who are against the Palestinian state. It doesn't give the conflict any  context or why Hamas attracts militants in their ranks. It's the same  rhetoric that we're hearing from the war on terrorism. It demonizes the  enemy without trying to understand why terrorists become what they  are.  This is not to excuse terrorism, but I think mainstream  media does this all the time...  Marks certain groups w/out giving  people a good understanding on who they are and why they do what they  do. You are either a freedom fighter or a terrorist. You are either for  or against us.

  But this is worse than mainstream. It's right-wing media. Did you see  the rest of the website? http://www.frontpagemag.com/index.asp

  I will not hide the Other Press article you placed there because it  includes an explanation of where it comes from, but  I don't think  the 2nd article merits even that, though. Sorry. 

  Ie, Amy Goodman's coverage of the debate bt. Chomsky and Dershowitz...  I'm not against debates. But then again, there are 2 people speaking  from each side. The article above is completely one-sided.

  peace,
  sofia

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

_______________________________________________
Boston-editorial mailing list
Boston-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-editorial

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 With a free 1 GB, there's more in store with Yahoo! Mail.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/boston-editorial/attachments/20060125/e8ee0ffb/attachment.htm