Peter van Heusden
pvh at wfeet.za.net
Thu May 5 02:25:20 PDT 2005
Here in IMC-South Africa, we do support open publishing. In fact, some
other IMCs would probably fault us from time to time for not editing our
newswire more agressively - due to a lack of time and activists who are
online (most of our members don't have internet access), hate-speech
posts sometimes remain in our newswire for a number of days.
Having said that, however, we as the Cape Town collective have just
completed a lengthy process of adopting policies, and one of the things
we've done in that process is to define a kind of political direction.
Here's our current mission statement:
1. To provide media that is independent from political party bias or the
constraints of for-profit journalism and the capitalist-owned mainstream
2. To cover local events that are ignored or poorly covered by the
3. To seek out and provide coverage showing the global nature of
people’s struggles for social, economic and environmental justice.
4. To enable to participants in these struggles to write their own stories.
5. To expose the actions of business and government in oppressing and
6. Finally, to create media in such a way as to encourage activism for
social, economic and environmental justice.
Then, the IMC-South Africa Principles of Unity clearly states: We
function as a non-commercial, non-corporate, *anti-capitalist* collective.
So from this point of view, I don't see how we can cover stories from
the right, given that the right is as I understand it never
anti-capitalist. Fine, they can post to the newswire, but they're never
gonna make it into the features.
>The central unifying factor in all indymedias is open publishing. To me, this
>means free speech for *everyone*, not just the left. If we start censoring one
>(or many) points of view, we might as well be just another ZNET or something
>like that. This is what I mean when I say that some people want indy to be
>their own media empire. They want to shape it to more closely match their own
>political beliefs and agendas, just like the mainstrem media do.
>I don't believe that is the purpose of indy. I believe indy is meant to be a
>place where ideas that are crushed by the mainstream (or even the left) media,
>can be brought out into the open and debated. Otherwise, such issues are hidden
>away and they will fester and grow into monsters. I would much rather be able
>to debate the right wing on neutral ground, than simply pretend they don't exist
>and hope they go away.
>I believe that without open publishing, there is no reason for indymedia to exist.
>Quoting deva <drdartist at riseup.net>:
>>On May 3, 2005, at 2:36 PM, Anna wrote:
>>> I see the role of indy volunteers as keepers of the resource,
>>>>making sure it is open to all, left, right and in between.
>>>--- here i see potential for a *lot* of disagreement. i'm far from
>>>making sure indymedia is open to the right. on the contrary i think we
>>>should prevent the right from using indymedia. i think they have
>>>plenty of resources to use and i don't want them here. i'd hate the
>>>idea that i spend time and energy to give them a platform.
>>These are tricky terms. In different places they mean different things.
>>Here in the US, there are a wide range of people who would be called,
>>or would call themselves right. It is dangerous to refer to them, as
>>them. There are many different people.
>>For example, I often feel more in common with libertarians than with
>>liberal democrats. Here in the US, many conservatives have a better
>>grasp of rising fascism than liberals do. There is a lot of arrogance
>>on the left here, to think it is better and to look down on others.
>IMC-communication mailing list
>IMC-communication at lists.indymedia.org
More information about the IMC-communication