[Imc-uk-features] [Imc-uk-process] Possible new guidelines that could be drawn from the recent imc-uk-features discussion

[Mr. Demeanour]

Chris wrote:

> that some people would like additional guidelines along the following
> lines to be considered:
> 
> 
> Personally I don't favour any of the above,

I have no particular point of view on the 24-hour rule.

*In general* I favour the principle that features should link to proper
reports. Oxford has operated on that principle for a couple of years.
The shortage of features in Oxford is a result of the deficiencies of
our collective, not of the operation of that rule.

While Indymedia newswires are indeed not discussion forums, it would be
a major change to ban commenters from posting opinions, arguing with the
article, or arguing with one another; I think it would be unpopular; and
I'm against it.

I don't see why a feature shouldn't consist of opinion or comment.
> 
> I appears to me that some people want to steer Indymedia down a NPOV
> [1] road, I think this is a mistake

Me too - most definitely. It is a gross error to believe that "unbiased
reporting" is possible. All reporting is necessarily biased. Everybody
has an angle. Dressing up a report as "neutral" is therefore dishonest.
Honest reporting wears its bias on its sleeve, and that's what Indymedia
reporters do.

> "While the mainstream media conceal their manifold biases and
> alignments, we clearly state our position. Indymedia UK does not
> attempt to take an objective and impartial standpoint: Indymedia UK 
> clearly states its subjectivity."

Precisely. One might "attempt" it, but the attempt would be doomed to
failure. Indymedia doesn't attempt it; Indymedia embraces the fact that
"objective reporting" is impossible.

-- 
Jack.