[Imc-communication] [Imc] question regarding UCIMC

[bmedia at riseup.net]

brian said:

> I have been in conversation with the Portland IMC for example
> about the money issue
> and we have turned to discussing our efforts videotaping police.

as the portland imcista who has been talking with brian, i would like  
to make it very clear that my concerns over the money issue have, in  
no way, been erased by our side conversation regarding videotaping  
police brutality. i think that i have come to the understanding that  
the people at UC are not necessarily bad people, but are nevertheless  
making unquestionably bad decisions with regard to money, and are  
unable to absorb the meaning behind any criticism of the path they  
have chosen. this message from brian points up yet another reason for  
concern.

i did not realize that UC has been printing rosey commercials for  
"sustainers" in their newspaper. this seemed like the logical next  
step on the slippery slope of capitalist compromise that UC has  
embarked upon from the very beginning. however, i had no idea that  
they had already actually taken that step.

i am disheartened that the people at UC seem to have no will to  
understand the very real concerns that so many of us in the IMC world  
have about the corporate model that UC has adopted and continues to  
call "IMC." i am also disheartened to see the depths to which the  
desire for money has apparently permeated and obstructed UC's ability  
to see the truth. Brian has stated that

> Our blurb is not so much an advertizement as an informational bit.
> And if the sustainers pulled out, it would have NO influence on our
> editorial decisions.

how very, very sad. of COURSE it is an advertisement. it is a blatant,  
naked infomercial. naturally, that is why these businesses "sustain"  
you. and of course you would make compromises in what you say or do  
not say because of your desire for their money. you already have. of  
COURSE it has already influenced your editorial decisions. you would  
never have featured such fluff if not for the need to please your  
sponsors. on some level, surely you know this. yet you continue to  
deny that this money mindset has any effect on you at all. just like  
an addict insists that s/he can quit any time s/he wants to.

i have privately urged brian and other UC people to look for new ways  
to do things, to seek alternatives to the corporate, money-dependent  
model. brian, i have begged you to try the truly creative,  
imaginative, DIY tactics that have set so many IMCistas free from the  
kinds of destructive compromises that so many well-meaning people make  
when they suck from the capitalist teat -- the very pattern of  
cascading compromises that i see UC making. but the response has been  
the predictable denial that i would expect from any addict.

You have insisted that yours is "just another way to do things," just  
another tactic, and have demanded that i respect your autonomy and let  
you just head off the ledge even if you drag the name of the work that  
i do with you. Brian, this is not "another" way of doing things. it's  
the same old way. and it's a dead end. it co-opts those who play by  
those rules into a morass of compromises. and it infects outward.

we talked about the compromise you made with having a "president."  
remember? when i asked you why UC has a "president," you said that UC  
looks weird on paper, because you had to have this kind of hierarchal  
structure in order to please the bank. you had to please the bank,  
because you needed a $150,000 loan. you needed a $150,000 loan because  
you bought a BUILDING. ...and so on and on and on. do you not see how  
one unimaginative decision, one compromise, led to another and another?

this same contagion of compromises leads from UC to other IMCs when,  
for example, UC sponsors some other project, but only if they jump  
through the hoops that you have set up -- that, as you pointed out,  
you have to set up because the IRS requires you to. see how that  
works? it just sucks people in. as when you advertise on your site  
that "IMC is now hiring," giving the impression that it's acceptable  
for an IMC to use paid employees. in my opinion, it is not. but UC has  
done so, in the name of all IMCs. and as boud has pointed out, when UC  
advertised for those positions, they required applicants to be  
proficient in proprietary software -- thereby spreading that disease  
as well. yet when boud went to the trouble of pointing out  
alternatives, silence from UC. no effort seems to have been made to  
ackowledge, respect, or consider any of the concerns or suggestions  
that people have expressed with regard to the necessity of doing  
things differently around money. this saddens me.

Cat



Quoting Brian Dolinar <briandolinar at gmail.com>:

> Hey UK.
>
> I can assure you we are not beholden to sustainers and contributors.
> The $30k grant willl help us make it the community center we dream of.
> We can apply again next year, but if it doesn't come through we will  
>  not fold.
>
> I can speak most directly to our work at the Public i, our newspaper.
> We have sustainers and list their name on the back page.
> Recently we have decided to do very short features on our sustainers.
> This month we're covering an international foods store, World Harvest.
> The store's owner is Iraqi and has family members who have died in the
> conflict.
> He has spoken out against the war and has a progressive agenda.
> These are the alliances we our comfortable building with the biz community.
> Our blurb is not so much an advertizement as an informational bit.
> And if the sustainers pulled out, it would have NO influence on our
> editorial decisions.
>
> I would emphasize that independence means
> independence from the mainstream media.
> I personally cover stories on racial profiling, police brutality,
> legal frame-ups
> that get no play in the local rags.
>
> Additionally, I hope that we can respect one another's independence
> or autonomy
> while building a global network of IMCs.
> And learn from one another's successes and failures.
> I have been in conversation with the Portland IMC for example
> about the money issue
> and we have turned to discussing our efforts videotaping police.
>
> I would like to know if any other IMCs have utilized state grants.
> In this time of budget cuts, i'm quite surprised to be getting any dough.
> We should spend it quick before they take it back.
>
> In solidarity,
>
> BD
>
> On 9/13/06, Notts IMC <notts at indymedia.org> wrote:
>> Hiya,
>>
>> I have been following the discussion about the paid UCIMC workers on the
>> imc-communication email list for a while now. I've just read the following
>> article:
>>
>> Urbana Independent Media Center Awarded $30,000 Grant From The Illinois
>> Arts Council - http://www.ucimc.org/feature/display/148743/index.php
>>
>> My question is to what degree the Urbana Independent Media Center relies
>> on funding coming in from outside funders. If funding would be rejected,
>> could the project carry on with its work? After all, that seems to make it
>> an INDEPENDENT media centre, meaning you are not dependent on something or
>> someone to be able to run the project.
>>
>> See Wiktionary: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/independent
>>
>> Wietse, UK IMC
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IMC mailing list
>> IMC at lists.ucimc.org
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc
>>
>
>
> --
> Brian Dolinar, Ph.D.
> 303 W. Locust St.
> Urbana, IL 61801
> briandolinar at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> IMC-communication mailing list
> IMC-communication at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-communication
>