[Imc-uk-features] 374918

[mish]

Hello

I'll try to keep this short :)

First off I agree with yoss and maqui's analysis.  

But indymedia covers a range of people, so I do not want to entirely
exclude people questioning the official story of 911 etc.

So, I'm thinking off the top of my head here (so please cut me some
slack, just starting to explore some ideas) maybe we could hide
unsubstantiated rants, but leave posts that have at least some hard
facts, or well laid arguments/analysis.

We could give more lee way to posts about events near to grass roots
campaigns such as those that Yoss mentions, and less lee way to posts
about what the state is doing, mainstream politics etc.

Not sure how workable this is, so I'm very open to modifications of this
proposal, and I'm sure we'd all have fun trying to work out which side
of the line various posts fall ...

Think I'll stop there and see what others think
mish

On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 19:45 +0100, maqui wrote:
> Hello
> 
> On Tuesday, July 3, 2007, at 02:30  pm, yossarian wrote:
> 
> > Personally I don't see, and have never seen, any reason to keep the
> > conspiracy stuff in the wire.  In my view, there is plenty of room on
> > the web for this sort of speculation, people can easily set up a 
> > MySpace
> > page, a blog on blogger.com, etc.  The fact that many of the conspiracy
> > reports we get are just cut-and-pastes from blogs that are readily
> > available elsewhere doesn't make me think that they are deserving of 
> > our
> > time and effort, or that the 9/11 truth "movement" are contributing to
> > the wire in the same way as people in other movements, who consistently
> > create original content (including both action reports and analyses) to
> > contribute to the collective undertaking that is the Indy UK newswire.
> 
> Agree. I'm getting a bit tired of conspiracy stuff too. As I type the 
> top of the wire is mainly about reposts reacting to the events in 
> London and Glasgow, events that, in any case, are being covered by 
> mainstream and corporate media 24 hours flat.
> 
> This doesn't mean that to me the wire should be hermetic to stuff 
> relating to events that escape what we may call 'the movements', but i 
> strongly question if straight copy and pastes of rants that have no 
> news value, nor any substantial backing to the claims they pose, should 
> be given space in our site. The only reason this copy and pastes appear 
> in our wires is for self-serving purposes (i.e. further publicity and 
> attention to whatever claims) and not to contribute and participate in 
> building alternatives to the current system and state of affairs (which 
> is what imc does imo) These post are therefore, in my view, selfish, 
> individualistic, replicate the status quo, and merely react to what the 
> 'masters' (the sate, the media, the agencies, whatever do or don't do). 
> They have nothing to do with 'building alternatives', collaborative 
> practices, grass roots autonomy or any of the things I would like IMC 
> to be associated with. Therefore, the sort of posts being discussed in 
> this list the last 24h or so, are, in my view, diametrically contrary 
> to the ethos of this project, and I often wonder why we allow them.
> 
> Whether the posts are 'relevant to recent major events' or not it is 
> not that much the issue for me. To me the main problems are that they 
> are often traceable to extremely right wing outlets and positions (as 
> yossarian often points out, thanks whoever!) that promote the views of 
> specific groups and campaigns rarely to be seen within the autonomous 
> 'grass-roots movements for social justice', that they make the wire 
> turn into a sort of free for all reactive (and often reactionary) 
> forum, and that depart from the diy 'passionate telling of the truth' 
> through direct reports of social struggles.
> 
> In other words, I would not have a problem with so many postings about 
> the last events in London and Glasgow if they were telling me, 
> first-hand, for example about what it is like to be a muslim in a 
> Glasgow and London council state right now, or a middle-eastern looking 
> doctor or nurse working in the nhs this week (i don't know, these are 
> only two -maybe too simplistic- examples coming to my mind right now) 
> but you see what I mean?
> 
> 
> I also don't feel that the conspiracy "movements" are standing up to
> > government or corporate power in the same way as the people at G8
> > protests, demonstrations against financial institutions, the 
> > Zapatistas,
> > noborders groups, wildcat strikers, Justice 4 Cleaners, the anti-CPE
> > demonstrators in France, the squatters of Ungdomhuset or Les Tanneries
> > or The Square or Ramparts, anti-GMO activists, Brian Haw, the B-52
> > wreckers, Smash EDO, the big anti-war demonstrations, etc (just to name
> > a few).  Those, and many other movements, are the reasons that I put
> > time into Indymedia.  I have respect for them, because to me they are
> > more than a bunch of bloggers who occasionally get together to hold up
> > placards in Whitehall.
> 
> Can't agree more.
> 
> > A few thoughts - newswire posts stating "you guys are a bunch of 
> > fucking
> > morons" from people who clearly know of the existence of the features
> > list, and who even personally know some of our newswire admins, don't
> > really make me think want to take their complaints seriously or 
> > consider
> > their cut-and-pastes in a more favourable light.  Another thing is that
> > I have been getting consistent flak about "stupid 9/11 bullshit in the
> > wire" in London when I'm out at movement meetings, socials,
> > demonstrations, and other events, which is maybe worth relaying here.
> 
> Yeah, me too, and I often find myself trying to 'excuse' the wire by 
> rambling about the pros and cons of OP or whatever so to 'save the 
> face'. I also know of many people being out off with this sort of 
> wires, and I sometimes wonder how come good imc sites out there manage 
> not to be clogged with 'mainstream issues' so much as the uk does. 
> Whether most people out there may be interested in major events taking 
> place such as this attacks in London and Glasgow, or, i don't know, the 
> change of prime minister or whatever, is not the point. To me the point 
> is to try to give to these a different angle, one that almost always is 
> suppressed in the mainstream or corporate media. And I don't think that 
> posts merely claiming that this or that 'security' agency is 'in fact' 
> behind this or that terrorist attack does that at all.
> 
> > I don't
> > expect that we'll figure all this out today but it'd be nice for a
> > change if everybody who does get into the discussion could try to
> > refrain from personal attacks and keep the tone positive, the features
> > list has been a pretty unpleasant place recently.
> 
> Yes I agree too, and I mentioned this to this list recently.
> 
> Anyway, I am not sure if I rambled unnecessarily here, but I am going 
> to click send anyway, coz the main thing I wanted to do with this mail, 
> is, in fact, support yossarian's arguments :-) and maybe to also 
> contribute to his "trying to figure out what I see as the
> distinction between the various conspiracy "movements" and the ones I 
> actually think belong in the newswire".
> 
> Anyway, cheers
> 
> maqui
> 
> 
> --
> Indymedia United Kollektives editorial: features and wire moderation
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-features