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

[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."

As for formalising indymedia's anti-war position... would this  
referee specifically to the us/uk invasion of iraq or be a wider anti- 
war statement generally, basically state position against violence,  
or specifically state violence, or specific states with imperialist  
agendas? I think it would be a mistake to cast a wide net on this one  
but if it seems a good idea then I suggest we also specify indymedia  
position on other issues such a climate change (with a guideline  
prohibiting climate change denial posts) and biotechnology (with a  
guidelines prohibiting pro-GM/nano post)... etc etc.

ben


[Imc-uk-features] Anti-Imperial Editorial Guideline?
Chris chris at aktivix.org
Tue Sep 4 09:29:49 UTC 2007

     * Previous message: [Imc-uk-features] Unsubscribing + Hidden 380288
     * Next message: [Imc-uk-features] [Imc-uk-process] Anti-Imperial  
Editorial Guideline?
     * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi

One thing I'd like to suggest for the next network meeting
is that we agree a additional anti-imperial, anti-war
editorial guideline -- although we perhaps take it for
granted that Indymedia doesn't support the UK / US
occupation of Iraq and all the other imperial
interventions that have left millions dead since WWW2 I
think it would help if we were upfront about our
subjectivity when it comes to the genocide and war crimes
committed by the state: we are opposed to them.

Anti-war protests have been perhaps the most reported
protests on the site since the laungh of the "war on
terror" yet opposition to war isn't mentioned in our
editorial guidelines. The only statment I think we have
that even mentions the anti-war movement is what we agreed
on the day of the 7/7 bombings:

     Indymedia UK Statement on London bombs

     Short statement on the bombs in London today:

     "Indymedia UK stands in solidarity with all the victims
     of today's horrific attacks in London. We share the
     disgust felt by all about these acts and their
     perpetrators, our thoughts are with the victims and
     their families. We are also acutely aware that these
     events will be exploited by the most reactionary
     elements of the British media and political
     establishment for their own selfish purposes.

     We are particularly concerned about a possible backlash
     against Britain's Muslim community as we saw following
     9/11 in the USA. We urge all activists involved in
     progressive politics to do everything they can to stop
     this from happening. Now is the time to be building
     bridges between all communities as we have seen with the
     anti-war movement. Don't feel helpless, do something.

     We will continue to give a voice to all who have an
     opinion on these events and have little or no voice in
     the mainstream media. Our usual editorial guidelines
     apply.

     IMC'ista, 07.07.2005 16:15

   https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/londonattack

The thing that prompted me to think there is a need for
this is an editorial decision that was made yesterday,
this comment:

     The actual situation
     03.09.2007 15:53

     As much as I'm sure the some IMC reader would love to
     think the UK forces in Basra have suffered some sort of
     defeat the reality is very different.

     In real terms the British policy from the start in
     Basra has been the route the US should have taken. 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.

     The Brirish Army has completed this training pretty
     much on the timeline and with minimal casualities in
     military terms.

     Finaly the comments by the poster 'Danny' illustrate
     such a complete and utter lack of understanding of not
     only the current situation in the Southern Iraqi area
     but also control of supply lines in a military
     environment he really should not contribute. 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.

     Arran

   https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/380152.html?c=all#c180335

Was, understandably, hidden, then Ben decided to unhide it
and promote it as an addition to the article. I then
depromoted it and then after that ftp hid it again. I
don't think that indymedia should promote
pro-establishment disinformation -- there is quite enough
of this in the mainstream media already.

I have copied this to the features list for info -- best
if any discussion about any changes to the editorial
guidelines are done on the process list.

Chris