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

[Tony]

Reading through the Editorial Guideline and the Mission Statement - 
it is clear where indymedia stands on politics without having to 
write a policy for each eventuality or issue. I can't see any need to 
start adding specific issues in the EG's.

cheers tony

At 09:29 +0100 4/9/07, Chris wrote:
>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
>
>--
>Aktivix -- Free Software for a Free World
>
>--
>Indymedia United Kollektives editorial: features and wire moderation
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-features