pescao at thenewagenda.org
Fri Jul 14 19:36:48 PDT 2006
thanks ekes for that response, i agree that socialist appeal (NOT
socialist action, who are red ken's official fan club) were plugging
themselves a bit, but would it have been any more acceptable if they
had hidden who it was from, or just had a weblink? it seems more
authentic this way. but that's a side issue and you raise some good
points, which i will try to address below.
On 14 Jul 2006, at 21:09, ekes wrote:
>> On 14 Jul 2006, at 15:18, ad_nauseam at riseup.net wrote:
>>> John McDonnell decides to stand for Labour Party leadership (345074)
>>> by the Socialist Appeal editorial board - hierarchy
> charley allan wrote:
>> please clarify why you have hidden this - is it because the you think
>> that socialist appeal is hierarchic or that the labour party is?
>> thank you in advance for your cooperation, pescao xx
> I have disagreed with ad_nauseam a number of times about the
> interpretation of the Hierarchy guideline. So feel it's worth chucking
> my 2p worth in to support the hiding!
i, too, feel that ad_nauseam sometimes overzealously interprets the
hierarchy guideline. one of the reasons why i raised this challenge
was to get more clarification on this very issue. of course, i would
especially like to understand your position on this particular post.
> First of all, I want to be clear I am discussing the value of this
> and not others on the wire - we'll have opinions about them too but
> comparisons never work. Also I am talking in relation to the
> purpose of
> Indymedia, not a reading of the _guidelines_ as rules.
ok, but this is where the trouble starts. the guidelines are
sufficiently ambiguous to allow different interpretations, as well as
severe inconsistency depending on who is monitoring the wires. are
they rules or not? what happens if there's a disagreement? the
editorialising problem has only gotten worse since the promoted
status was introduced, partly because there are no guidelines for
that at all.
> But to start with the guideline... the content of the post is a
> promotion for Socialist Action and it's position. It certainly
> that it is using the newswire as a noticeboard.
nonsense! the post is, first and foremost, news, which had not
appeared on the wire before. yes, there's plenty of analysis and a
fair bit of opinion but that is all part of journalism. any reader is
free to make of it what they will. sorry to bring this up again, but
it's social appeal, not action (who certainly will not be supporting
mcdonnell's bid for PM, given that ken's with the brownites).
> The purpose of the guideline is to stop the newswire being used as a
> promotion platform for hierarchical organisations. Indymedia UK is not
> here to promote particular organisations.
but that's not what's going on here. as it happens, socialist appeal
(which i'm not a member of but am friends with plenty of people who
are) are very grassroots and horizontal, (well, maybe about 10
degrees diagonal). but anyway, they're not using the wire as a
'promotional platform,' far from it. they're announcing the (i think)
very exciting news that john mcdonnell has thrown his hat in the ring
and giving a bit of background to his campaign. i'm not sure he'll
win, but he might do. if he doesn't then everyone in the left who
have been arguing for 'reclaiming the labour party' will be proved
spectacularly wrong. i'm not one of those people, but the conditions
now are as favourable as they'll ever be. but that's not really
relevant to this hiding. the point is, they wrote it, so it's ok for
them to sign their name at the end and mention that they've been
arguing for this for a long time. again, would it have made it any
more authentic or grassroots if they had hidden the fact that it was
> The content of the post does not promote or report on anything people
> are actually doing for themselves, or even what they could do for
well, i disagree. first of all, john mcdonnell, who, let's face it,
is about as grassroots as you've got in parliament, is, for many
campaigns and people who use indymedia, "one of us." who is it that
writes early day motions on harmondsworth and colnbrook? who is it
that chairs countless campaigns to raise the profile of grassroots
issues? who is it that blair and cronies hate the most? secondly,
it's very clear what we can all do to help him. but first of all, we
have to find out what's going on!
> This is where I will diverge from others... I might argue for posts
> about struggle within the Labour Party to be on the Newswire. Only
> might, because I have little faith in the chances of a real campaign
> from the CLP members happening. But if they do, and want to report
> what they the CLP members are are actually *doing* to change the
> of the Party to make it fit "struggles for a world based on freedom,
> cooperation, justice and solidarity, and against environmental
> degradation, neoliberal exploitation, racism and patriarchy" I'm
> interested again.
good, because this is the most important point. the biggest political
event of this year (probably) will be blair resigning and the
scramble to replace him. we cannot ignore this issue. we're also not
going to win anything while we contribute to a paranoid sectarian
"two left" viewpoint. i'm not sure which constituency labour parties
are hotbeds for radicalism (most are almost moribund so i've heard,
but i have no idea and have never been a member) but people like
mcdonnell, corbyn and simpson have been very active in supporting the
grassroots for many years and are absolutely behind everything
indymedia stands for. but they need our help, too.
i hope to understand more fully your exact reasons for agreeing to
this hiding, because i don't see how this post breaches any
guidelines. socialist appeal are not hierarchic, even if they were
they are still free to post news, even if it's about the labour party
leadership contest. as such, 345074 should be unhidden immediately.
thanks for listening, pescao xxx
More information about the IMC-UK-Features