[Imc-uk-features] Call to discuss [was:London and Glasgow: Brown's 'Bombs'?]
guidoreports at riseup.net
guidoreports at riseup.net
Tue Jul 10 15:16:17 PDT 2007
Having finally had enough time to read this discussion I would like to
make clear the reasons for my strong opposition to the Browns Bombs
Firstly though I should retract my accusation about the timing of the
proposal. Yes less people are looking at lists during their weekends but
as ftp pointed out there was well over 24 hours for this to be considered.
I dont want to waste anyones time repeating points already expressed so
I can say in a single sentence that Ben has pretty much summed up my views
on the feature and its content. To be brief, its all non-news theoretical
material that is not grassroots reporting by any stretch of the
imagination. Im all in favour of features containing analysis that
compliment (or even challenge) the core material. The problem is that this
feature does not contain any real core material. The only common thread is
that none of it is promoted and all of it is comment rather than
Nearly half of the links go to posts that went up months/years before the
recent bombs even happened. This could lead to allegations that the author
of the feature is merely selecting his material to push his own agenda or
world view. You could ask for example, why this post:
did not appear in it? It is after all directly relevant to the title of
the feature and is seen unhidden on the newswire.
For what its worth I do not think that the author is being deliberately
devious or trying to steer IMC UK towards his own political viewpoint.
Having met him, he strikes me as being passionate about his beliefs and
totally upfront about what he thinks. I also appreciate that he spends
more time than most maintaining this site and also finds the time to post
some excellent reports from his local area as well as national events. I
dont agree with any of his views on stuff like 9/11 or 7/7, but he is
entitled to them.
It is also my opinion that if the truthers take their struggle beyond
the realms of cyberspace and hold meetings, demos or direct actions; then
what they are doing IS news and suitable for this site no matter how full
of shit I happen to think they are. The recent demo in Parliament Square
that appeared on the newswire with pictures makes a good example. However
the general policy of hiding speculative, inaccurate rants by the likes of
dh, KN and others is correct. The same way it is right to hide the
Chem.-Trails spam and that stuff about psychiatry that the Scientologists
There are thousands of forums all over the net where people can debate
their theories to their hearts content. Obviously many of those people
would love to have the attention of far bigger audiences like that of IMC
UK. For this reason we have always maintained a news/reports first
approach while giving space to users to express their views in the form of
the comments option. My main problem with the feature in question is that
it gives the opposite impression. Plenty of comment and analysis, without
any news or reports. A green light to anyone who sees IMC UK as place of
debate rather than action. A green light to anyone who wants to abuse our
open publishing facility for their own purposes.
IMC UK is seen by many as being the best in the world. Both for content,
and innovation. This is what I am told wherever I go. Most recently in
Germany. It is NOT broken, it does NOT need fixing and if that simple fact
pisses off a handful of conspiracy theorists and egotists then so be it.
P.S. Im more than happy to take these points to a Network meeting. I
agree that lists are not always the best medium for constructive
On Tue, July 10, 2007 10:40 am, planet-mail at aktivix.org wrote:
> phunkee said:
> "You seem to have glossed over how we can actually investigate some of
> these issues ourselves as journalists. The outcome of which can be
> radically different from mainstream journalist accounts of issues and
> It's also something that imo a lot of us don't even consider doing half
> the time, but it's a vital part of good engaging journalism."
> and in previous mail also:
> "I'm all for investgative pieces on how the mainstream media underpins
> the military industrial complex - surely that's what indymedia is also
> about. We're not here to ape the mainstream media's account of world
> events when it comes to protests so why should we do the same with current
> my initial take:
> It seems to me this feature is simply an opinion / comment piece
> referencing mostly articles that have been published in other media like
> the register etc(the mp3 audio report aside), and certainly not
> investigative journalism on indymedia's part. I agree there's a great lack
> of investigative journalism and would be nice to see more - corporate
> watch and others do come up with good stuff that i would call
> on a pers level i don't like the feature for the tonal implications
> behind 'brown's bombs' and 'who benefits?' and also because of the crass
> assertion that "between 20 and 30 million deaths since World War II is of
> no comparision to the botched attacks in the UK"...
> i do strongly agree that the lack of grassroots reporting basis for this
> article is a problem.
> anyway i'm gonna read more and consider a longer reponse.
> am certainly concerned that people talk of schisms and ending like italy
> (believe me there's a looong way to go before that!), but, yes, also
> support meeting up to discuss this and related issues as there is a very
> clear need for it.
> ben's suggestion of some time around the climate camp national meeting in
> london may be good - if it's not then (ie very soon) i can see it being a
> bit difficult to sort out until later after the climate camp.
> cheers, dave
> ps i don't think the timing of the proposal for the feature was in any
> way cynical!
> Indymedia United Kollektives editorial: features and wire moderation
More information about the IMC-UK-Features