[Imc-uk-features] news vs non news and political differences

[freethepeeps at aktivix.org]

Ben wrote (inaccurate, speculative comment, no original grassroots news content
- Tue Jul 3 10:41:11 UTC 2007)

"I simply thought indymedia  
was a site for grassroots news reporting generated from within a  
movement of people engaged in the struggles being reported - the  
journal of the movement etc rather than a discussion forum where  
people comment and speculate about stories they've read in the  
mainstream media. I'll bet a significant sum of money that the author  
of the post hidden has no personal involvement with the events he  
referred to and got all his 'info' from the mainstream media. That is  
not indymedia and if it is I really don't know why we are bothering."

It seems to me that there has always been an ambiguity within Indymedia - this
is to do with its aspirations to be a "journal of the movement" and, at the
same time, a forum for "open posting".

However, as I said in an earlier post, the criteria you use for hiding
"conspiracy theory" stuff, if applied to the rest of the newswire would result
in many posts being removed.

Espinoza posts, cleaves zapto posts and the majority of Lancaster UAF posts
spring to mind immediately, as they tend to rehash mainstream media reports,
and are not first hand reports.

There are plenty of other posts which fail to meet your vision - and in fact
most of the posts that do meet your criteria are to be found on the promoted
newswire.

The fact that you appear to only apply this criteria to posts such as the ones
about the recent "terror(sic) scare" is what leads to me think that there are
political reasons for targetting these posts in particular.

Other people have been  clear that they do not see 'truth activists' as being
part of the movement, and there have been several mccarthyite (imo) calls for
them to be expunged from the movement.

One of the reasons put forward is that many of the 'truth' posts are to found on
right wing websites - and the problem I have with that is that its
circumstantial evidence/smear by association - exacerbated by the fact that
there seems to be a body of people on the left who are for censoring them on
'our' websites, even if there is not actually any right wing content in the
posts . I cringe when I read statements alomg the lines of 'allowing such posts
on our websites undermines our credibility and makes us a laughing stock' -
because it suggests the same kind of mindset as mainstream politics in the
post-Thatcher era, where every party is scrabbling for the middle ground and
for public approval.

Open publishing essentially means that content is determined by the posters, and
does not imply that every member of the editorial collective agrees with them.
If posters are to use the site, they are surely entitled to expect that their
postings will be dealt with within a consistent and understandable editorial
framework?

There are people who I have political differences with in the collectives, but I
do not think they should be expunged - the strength of Indymedia is that it is
inclusive, and brings together a broad range of people and political
viewpoints, as long as they are willing to work within the boundaries set by
the mission statement, editorial guidelines and a commitment to
non-hierarchical working.

Similarly there are campaigns that I identify with, and others that I don't.
What I have never believed is that I have the right to determine which can be a
part of the 'movement' and which cannot. 

Many activists have already been at the receiving end of repressive measures
brought about as a result of media and political hype over  "terror scares" and
there is every likelihood that more will come about as a result of the
so-called 'bombs' (there were no bombs - simple incendiary devices at best).

I therefore do not find it surprising that people have chosen to post reactions
to the media hype that surrounds these very recent events, and the political
differences do become apparent when we see the wide range of responses to them
as evidenced in the discussion that has been taking place on this list after
the posts were removed.

Now we need to find a creative way of dealing with these posts that acknowledges
those differences, and doesn't cause anger and suspicion.

ftp