[Imc-communication] Belgium Imc Western - Reflections

clara clara at ifrik.org
Tue Jun 28 15:24:50 PDT 2005


dear han,
as i said earlier, I gave this example as an illustration of the
argument ionnek gave, and to contradict your claim that things hidden on
indy.be are spam, double postings and the like.

- I did not claim it was a violation of the PoU. I never claimed that
anarachists are not allowed ot post on indy.be.
- I don't know why you turn what started as a thoughtful analysis by
Ionnek into a counter attack on another IMC.
- I don't understand why I should not be allowed to use an article I
came across 2 months ago as an argument. (I did not search the archives.
I just used what I already knew, because as so many others: we have been
hearing about this conflict much longer than those 2 months.)
- The accessability is not the argument I made, but the resaon for hiding.

And yet again: I don't care about the specific content of the posting.
(I don't care whether you or I agree with the action taken by those
people standing trial or not.)
I used this example to explain what Ionnek might have meant by "indy.be
seem to have a clear line of reporting rather than the anarchic
newsgathering that is characteristic of so many other imcs." and that
that "articles that don't fit this line of reporting are hidden or deleted."

If you or others from indy.be want to discuss whether there is a right
for anonymous postings: fine. If you want to discuss practical ways of
hiding articles at the fine balance between keeping them accessible and
being legally responsible for them: fine.

But yet again: I gave this posting as an example that indy.be uses more
reasons then spam, double postings and the like to hide. In
contradiction to your claim, and in support of Ionnek's general analysis.

I can only see your attack on indy.nl as a diversion tactic.

greetings
clara



han at indymedia.be wrote:
> Hi Clara
> 
> Well in sted of looking way back in the hidden pages of another IMC, I
> would be intrested in the way the NL collective deals with this.
> 
> http://indymedia.nl/en/opentrashbin.shtml
> "These articles and comments were moved to the trashbin because they
> did not meet the policy for posting news on this site. This articles
> and comments will stay accessible for five days before they will
> become completely irritrievable."
> Read more about the policy of Indymedia NL concerning posting news
> here... <http://indymedia.nl/en/static/help.policy.shtml> :
> http://indymedia.nl/en/static/help.policy.shtml
> 
> According to some in this list these are serious infractions on the POU.
> I would rather like to know how the #NL deals with this, why did it
> implement such a policy, ... I do not judge this policy of the #nl
> collective.   I would just like to knouw and understand how you guys
> function,maybe we can learn something.
> 
> Yet I find it rather disturbing that you go look in the hidden archive
> of anthor IMC two months back to illustrate somthing when in the IMC
> you are involved with people can only look back for 5 days in that
> archive.
> 
> And i really do not understand what this illustrates.
> The hidden artickle was a provocation & copy  paste, these are clearly
> reasons to put them on hidden. There are plenty of artickles from
> different groups about this trial on the .be site (from the ANarchist
> Black Cross, the NAR (Anarchist Magazinne, ...).  So lets not pretend
> that anarchists are not allowed to post on .be as some seem to be
> doing.  There was no such thing as "clear line of reporting" on this
> issue,... yet this issue was covered.
> As a matter of fact some other IMC's had clear line of reporting on
> this issue.  People who had second thought on the hostage action where
> bullied away. There were even calls to brun other anarchist magazines
> who had doubts about this kind of actions and the way this hostage
> taking was glorified by some others.  This seems to me as a "clear
> line of reporting".
> 
> greets
> 
>                 han
> 
> clara wrote:
> 
> 
>>>Dear Han,
>>>
>>>You complain that I use 2 months old article as an example in a
>>>conflict that has been going one for much longer, and you seem to
>>>build a whole theory around that. I think you are seeing ghosts
>>>here.
>>>
>>>Of course different members of the Dutch Indymedia collective have
>>>been looking at the indy.be site ever since this conflict appeared
>>>on different lists and on different sites. How else could a
>>>collective form an opinion on the different proposals?
>>>
>>>Just because an example is 2 months old doesn't make it invalid.
>>>According to your site it was not hidden as cross-posting nor as
>>>provocation, as you state here, but for another reason (no
>>>anonymous claims). So please don't divert the discussion by now
>>>stating other reasons and conspiracy theories.
>>>
>>>However, if you consider the posting on a belgian indymedia site
>>>about an action (in NL) to support a belgian activist (in Germany)
>>>a provocation, or if you want to hide an article because you think
>>>the two paragraphs of background information are not the right kind
>>>of information, then that is exactely the point that Ionnek made:
>>>That indy.be "seem to have a clear line of reporting rather than
>>>the anarchic newsgathering that is characteristic of so many other
>>>imcs." and that that "articles that don't fit this line of
>>>reporting are hidden or deleted."
>>>
>>>The example was given to illustrate this point for people who don't
>>>speak Dutch. And of course if I think I can give one strong
>>>example then I prefer to do that instead of swamping people with
>>>more, or misleading them by a weak one. That would be unfair to
>>>those people trying to understand the issue in its broadness.
>>>
>>>greetings clara
>>>
>>>PS: if anybody wants a translation of this posting, please tell me.
>>>
>>>
>>>han at indymedia.be wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Thank you Clara for being so specific. So by accident you point
>>>>to artickle dating from May 4 th?? Or does this mean you had to
>>>>go all te way backt (about two months) to find something that
>>>>might point in some direction. As explained before there ar some
>>>>provocations from other IMCistas that we put on hidden.
>>>>
>>>>By accident a mail from somebody of Nl collective was already
>>>>posted to this list for the same reason? This is not only a
>>>>claim, it is also a copy paste from the Nl website.
>>>>
>>>>By accident I received police visit to explain my links with
>>>>those who did the different attacks in Belgium en the
>>>>Netherlands. (there was nothing to report as there are no such
>>>>links).
>>>>
>>>>Moreover this artickle you point to explains nothing at all, it
>>>>just is saying : we did a attack on the office of the
>>>>"vreemdelingen politie" in Neimeghen (Netherlands). It explains
>>>>nothing. I does not explain that people are on trial because
>>>>they pulled a gun at some people at a gaz station,... it does not
>>>>explain why they did this, .... There are some artickles on the
>>>>.be site explaining all this.
>>>>http://www.indymedia.be/news/2005/05/96659.php
>>>>http://www.indymedia.be/news/2005/03/94225.php
>>>>http://www.indymedia.be/news/2004/10/89041.php
>>>>http://www.indymedia.be/news/2004/10/89039.php By this it aso
>>>>clear that there were reports on the .be website on all this.
>>>>
>>>>I find it rather disturbing that you pick such a provocative
>>>>example to discuss this, as there are plenty of other in the
>>>>features of the .be site. And you read Dutch.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>greets
>>>>
>>>>han
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>clara wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>just a short reaction on one of the points mentioned in
>>>>>>Ionnek's mail and Han's reaction on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(thanks Ionnek for such a calm and thoughtful piece. It
>>>>>>certainly deserves reactions on that level.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But while I don't want to get into the endless spirale of
>>>>>>discussing individual postings, but I also think that some
>>>>>>clear examples might be helpful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Han, you state that what is hidden are "Spam, double posts,
>>>>>>.... ".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>However, "anonymity" is also given as a reason to hide
>>>>>>something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Check http://www.indymedia.be/news/2005/05/96343.php for an
>>>>>>example. If you mark the black-on-black text it will become
>>>>>>visible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The article is a claim for an action (opeising,
>>>>>>Bekennerschreiben) in support of four activists (one of them
>>>>>>belgian) standing trial in Germany. It also gives some
>>>>>>background on their case. The article is hidden with the
>>>>>>reason "geen anonyme opeisingen op deze website" "no
>>>>>>anonymous claims on this website"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It might be questionable whether this is even "anonymous"
>>>>>>because the "Comittee grenzen weg ermee" who claim the action
>>>>>>is also given as author.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think this is a good example for what Ionnek describes as
>>>>>>the a "anarchistic newsgathering" that is 'characteristic of
>>>>>>so many other imcs'. It also is an example for such an
>>>>>>article being hidden.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Greetings clara
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Alternative mass media or participatory news platform?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>However, the Belgium situation is different from the UK
>>>>>>>>>situation. .be's approach is fundamentally different
>>>>>>>>>from the local Belgium collectives and most of the
>>>>>>>>>network as well. Indymedia.be is proud to focus on
>>>>>>>>>countrywide, bilingual news. They seem to have a clear
>>>>>>>>>line of reporting rather than the anarchic
>>>>>>>>>newsgathering that is characteristic of so many other
>>>>>>>>>imcs. Maybe this results in more concise reporting, I
>>>>>>>>>cannot judge that. The shortcoming is, I believe, that
>>>>>>>>>articles that don't fit this line of reporting are
>>>>>>>>>hidden or deleted. Which means that the participatory,
>>>>>>>>>empowering, DIY aspects of indymedia are shifting to
>>>>>>>>>the background.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ionnek before jumping to such conclusions it might be good
>>>>>>>to read once more
>>>>>>>
>>>>
> http://docs.indymedia.org/twiki/pub/Local/ConflictInBelgium/Indy_BE_TXT_02.html
> 
>>>>
>>>>>>>and point us to where you read something like that? And by
>>>>>>>the way, you could also check our hidden pages:
>>>>>>>
>>>>
> http://www.indymedia.be/news/?keyword=&author=&display=f&year=&month=&day=&medium=&category=0&sort=&limit=30
> 
>>>>
>>>>>>>You will notice that artickles hidden are Spam, double
>>>>>>>posts, .... and a huge amount of provocations by fellow
>>>>>>>IMCistas who proudly announce on mailing lists doing so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>IMC-communication mailing list
>>>>>>IMC-communication at lists.indymedia.org
>>>>>>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-communication
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-- , , / , \ / / , ,-, , \ \ ( ( ( ( )
>>>>) ) ) \ \ ' '-' ' / / \ ______ / ' |_ / ' / / _/
>>>>/_ /______/ Don't hate the media >> be the media www.indymedia.be
>>>>| www.indymedia.org
>>>>
>>>>
> 
> http://keys.indymedia.org/cgi-bin/lookup?search=DBF20FC7&op=index&submit=+Search+
> 
>>>>
>>>_______________________________________________ IMC-communication
>>>mailing list IMC-communication at lists.indymedia.org
>>>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-communication
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________ IMC-communication
>>>mailing list IMC-communication at lists.indymedia.org
>>>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-communication
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> 
> --
>   ,           ,
>    / ,           \
>   / / ,  ,-,  , \ \
>  ( ( (  (   )  ) ) )
>   \ \ '  '-'  ' / /
>    \    ______   /
>     '  |_    /  '
>         /   /
>       _/   /_
>      /______/ Don't hate the media >> be the media
>               www.indymedia.be | www.indymedia.org
> 
> http://keys.indymedia.org/cgi-bin/lookup?search=DBF20FC7&op=index&submit=+Search+
> 

_______________________________________________
IMC-communication mailing list
IMC-communication at lists.indymedia.org
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-communication




More information about the IMC-communication mailing list