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

[guidoreports at riseup.net]

I agree with Tony on this. Its not like pro-war propanganda is a huge
issue on the site. When you consider the amount of pro-war spam that
moderators have to deal with in comparison with say zionists/conspiracy
theorists/hierarchical groups/the barking mad ect then the pro-war stuff
is tiny by comparison.

It should also be pointed out that the 7/7 statement quoted by Chris below
is hardly a suitable template for deciding policy. It was written by me in
less than ten minutes and briefly shown to people in the Edinburgh IMC G8
centre before being posted. It was not agreed by many people or even
looked at in much detail before it went up. The reason for the lack of
proceedure as I recall was that people were concerned that after the
bombs, which had happened two hours earlier, the whole world was looking
at the UK. The previous day IMC UK had recieved over 1 million hits so
some sort of immediate response was necessary.

regards

G.


> 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
>
>
> --
> Indymedia United Kollektives editorial: features and wire moderation
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-features
>