[Imc-uk-features] unhiding 374918

[charley allan]

hi all, forgive my confusion, but wasn't the whole point of the  
promoted wire to give the purists their own "quality" front page  
without any of the messy stuff that the rest of us enjoy? i've always  
been against the promoted wire (it's undemocratic - still no  
guidelines afaik - and it's clearly editorialising) but, if you're  
going to have it, then please keep your hands off the non-promoted  
wire unless there's a really pressing reason to hide posts, not "i  
don't understand/agree with this."

On 3 Jul 2007, at 22:07, richard hering wrote:

> 374918 is clearly non-news, mere speculative rant suitable for a  
> blog, but not for a radical news site - and I would say inaccurate,  
> as there is no supporting evidence cited for calling the bomb plots  
> "so-called".  I think it should be hidden, and am surprised that  
> anyone should think otherwise.
>
> I agree completely with Ben and yossarian on this subject.  Surely  
> everyone knows that we get deluged with unsubstantiated conspiracy- 
> theory-fuelled speculation after any terrorist incident.  It  
> discredits indymedia massively as a NEWS site if we leave it unhidden.
>
> The problem seems to be from ftp's and Chris's comments that it  
> will be very difficult for us to get the consensus necessary to  
> maintain a quality newswire according to the guidelines.  Ben's  
> comments about not wasting his time might seem intemperate, but I  
> know what he means.  Yes - we're supposed to work by consensus and  
> disucssion, but I think the understanding behind that is that we're  
> coming from the same basic point of view, and are only discussing  
> marginal individual cases.  There's nothing marginal about this  
> post IMO - it's clearly in breach.
> Chris - what on earth do you mean by this:?
> "I think that questioning the absurd "war on terror" is
> essential, it appears from Bens recent actions and his
> past actions of hiding posts questioning the official
> story of 7/7 and 9/11 that perhaps he is concerned that
> Indymedia should not a site on which the official account
> of the "war on terror" can be doubted?"
>
> The problem with the questioning usually posted is that it's  
> totally in speculative blog-land.  By contrast, writers such as  
> Chomsky question the war on terror with a fistful of credible  
> references.
>
> I share Ben's frustration, because I think there are real problems  
> with the basis for our consensus here.  What makes us different  
> from blogs is that we should be a credible source of news, but some  
> members of the collective appear not to agree with this.  like Ben,  
> I haven't got time to debate this, but am keen to work to keep  
> indymedia free from sinking under a morass of non-news rant.  It  
> just makes us look ridiculous, and makes me not to want to have  
> anything to do with it.
>
> The problem is how we reach out to each other and try to get a  
> consensus on this.  this is not an ordinary political difference,  
> it seems to me, like being a socialist or an anarchist, which is a  
> perfectly workable difference under the guidelines.  this is more  
> fundamental - news vs speculation / debate / rant.  Indymedia, IMO,  
> is a news site or it is nothing.
>
> I would propose a meeting on this - face-to-face, not irc - in the  
> hope that consensus can be achieved, but I fear that some of us  
> have different faiths.
>
> Richard
>
> Copy addresses and emails from any email account to Yahoo! Mail -  
> quick, easy and free. Do it now...
>
> --
> Indymedia United Kollektives editorial: features and wire moderation
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-features

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/attachments/20070703/fcbf728c/attachment.htm