[IMC-UK-Features] feature proposal: Go Indymedia, go!

[Shiar]

On Wed, May 21, 2008 3:26 pm, Tony wrote:
> At first i was angry that people in the movement would be so gutter
> to misquote and deliberately mix up accusations and issues, use such
> sub-titles and titles - but the Shift editors and the anonymous
> writer have their own agendas and i don' think it worth a reply.

I personally think it is worth a reply and a lot of discussion, if only
because a lot of people seem to fall for such allegations, including
people among the collective itself!

TBH, i find it really strange that a site that claims to be the 'voice of
the movement' is reluctant to be the voice of itself!

> * A central column feature would indicate that this article is an
> imc-uk response - which it isn't - and i doubt considering the issue
> we would be able to write one easily.

As i said in a previous email, this feature is probably more collective
than most features on startpage. And I'm finding it increasingly hard to
stomach that this argument is only used with some of my (and chrisc's)
features that dare to say 'controversial' stuff.

> * Why bring publicity to a rubbish article - It seems that is what
> they want with the title so i would rather ignore them.

Let me put it this way: if only 10 or 5 activists read the article and are
convinced by its arguments and, subsequently, fall out with Indymedia,
then that's worth a feature, no?

> * i see no reason to start talking about conspiracy theories (as
> action) or going back through the issues in a reply.

The reason is that the article does that and we tried to respond to each
point concerning Indymedia.

> * Why give Shift any extra readers - they seem to have a high opinion
> of them selves and a low opinion of the movement judging by past
> articles. They do not acknowledge the complexities of the issues, or
> the wider discussions you bring up about an open publishing site and
> print media - but i guess there is a academic paper there on a plate
> for them!

It might well be the case that one of the reasons for attacking a big
project like indymedia is to get some attention. So the gambling game is,
by doing a feature about them, you either give them more publicity or
destroy their credibility once and fall all. IMO the feature does the
second.

> * They did not give us a right to reply in the issue, even though
> they knew  it was contentious, they did not talk to us through our
> open lists, but contacted people individually so i am sure they were
> not interested in a balanced article.

And that's why the suggestion that, instead of having the response on the
site, we send them the response and ask them to publish it sounds a bit
far-fetched.

> Maybe a better response would be to write an article of the bigger
> issues around this relating to indymedia and how we work and what our
> limits are as open media, but again maybe this would be of more
> interest to us than to others... and would take time.

People are more than welcome to do that but, imo, it doesn't work. From
personal experience, in this kind of things you'd have to be direct and
confrontational. Also, it's often been the case that a feature or project
is blocked with a suggestion that "maybe this would be a better way of
doing it" and then "this" never happens!

-- 
Shiar