[Imc-uk-features] Anti-Imperial Editorial Guideline?

Tue Sep 4 07:40:23 PDT 2007

Quoting Yossarian:

>I don't understand what this means, guido has contributed more
>"grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social
>and political issues" than any other single person I can think of in the
>history of imc-uk.  Personally, I regard him as the best contributor on
>the whole newswire, although there are a few others (Rikki's SOCPA
>series comes to mind) who are close. 

The reference was to this contributions to this discussion, not to his posts on
the newswire. On this thread he seeks to reduce this newswire to 'grassroots' -
'news not views' and is engaged in attacking a poster. Whilst I have issues
with that poster, I also think we are moving into dangerous territory if we
start applying such levels of analysis to each original post on the wire.

Quoting Garcon du Monde <gdm at fifthhorseman.net>:

> i think we are moving away from the point at little bit here: of course
> i do not agree with the writer of the comment but i do think that it is
> a valid contribution to the debate, particularly when the following 2
> comments both attempt to refute it. i also disagree, it should be added,
> with the notion that the comment be promoted.

"(the US game plan was
most definitely not a good one, and quite possibly would have been a lot
better if the british had been in command)."

If that isn't your viewpoint, it certainly isn't made clear in your post.
Whoever it belongs to, it doesn't hold up particularly well under scrutiny, as
Baha Moussa and plenty of others were unfortunate enough to find out.

> as an aside, the CiF comment is interesting: i understand from irc that
> CiF refers to 'comment is free' a la the gruniad website [1]. indymedia
> was fairly novel in that it portrayed the news as it was happening and
> *also* allowed a space for people to comment on, clarify, correct, add
> etc to the original piece [2]. that this is now being taken up by
> "professional" media organisations is surely something for which imc
> should be credited.
> 
> solidarity,
> 
> 	--gdm

CiF is as useful as urban75 as a source for discussion - ad hominens galore, and
no-one ever changed their position because of anything that was ever said on
it.

Going back to Yoss's 'best poster ever', some of what he said is clearly worth
repeating:

"The first IMC was set up in Seattle in 1999 to counter the blatant and
dishonest propaganda put out by the US media about the protests that were
paralysing the city at the time.

Since then, IMC outfits around the world have endevoured to provide an
alternative to the mainstream media spin."

And it is wierd then that we find ourselves in hot discussion over a comment
which is a distillation of mainstream media (and state) spin, and which is the
work of the most disruptive poster on IMC UK.

I don't think for a moment that the comment is anything like a " "radical,
accurate, and passionate telling of the truth" - its his normal bullshit,
designed to wind up and distort.

Guido went on to note that:

"There are literally hundreds of Internet forums across the globe that
cater for those who wish to discuss world events and speculate about
hidden agendas. IMC UK is not one of them. This possibly explains why
myself, and others are hostile to the site being turned into a forum for
&#8216;truthers&#8217;. We would be just as aggravated by any hijacking attempt
by a
hierarchical organisation. IMC is a &#8216;news service.&#8217; If you want a
&#8216;views
service&#8217; go to URBAN 75 or other discussion boards."

Whilst I struggle to see what he thinks news is (some kind of objective, bias-
free telling of the truth perhaps?) - I do think that the comment we are
discussing is more suited to an internet forum - and that there is little point
in having a comments section where right wingers post up preposterous
statements to wind up the so-called 'radical left'. Thats why we spent a long
time discussing the problem with the comments section at the network meeting in
Sheffield.

Quoting ben:

"I didn't mean to promote it, I thought I had merely  
unhidden it and I don't think that it deserves to be rehidden as it  
makes completely valid points such as "UK and US air superiority is  
absolute, the insurgents have no attack capability against massed  
armour and to suggest that the US Army could not leave Iraq anytime  
it wanted with no more than very minimal probis just fanciful.""

Is this also a vaild point? :

"" The UK has spent time and money training Iraqi froces to replace them on a
road by road, town by town, province by province basis and this has enabled a
gradual reduction in forces and in general far more local stability when
compared to the US controlled areas."

and are commentators telling lies when they note that:

"Back in 2003 the British government had hoped that smiling soldiers in berets
could bring peace and prosperity to the city. 

But the hard helmets quickly came back as as the militias rose in power and the
army's ability to control events in Basra waned. 

The palace became a magnet for insurgent attacks and the last 550 troops there
had been surrounded by militants in what was described as a 'cowboys and
Indians' situation. 

With the streets too dangerous to patrol, they assumed an increasingly passive
role."
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23410743-details/Bush+furious+as+British+troops+pull+out+of+Basra/article.do

The 2 claims are completely contradictory, no? And from where I stand, the 2nd
is far more believable than the second.

The first is the kind of spin you'd expect from an army that needed to get out
fast.

Perhaps you can assist us in thinking about "formalising indymedia's anti-war
position..." by pointing to a good war? One that we should be supporting
maybe?

Now, please spend some time reporting your latest hiddens, cos thats part of the
job, ok?

ftp