[IMC-UK-Features] feature proposal: Go Indymedia, go! - Response to the SHIfT article

[maqui]

Hiya

On Wednesday, May 21, 2008, at 04:03  pm, Shiar wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I would like to propose this response to the Shift article, which was

Blimey! .. what a long thread of emails. I've just gone through it, and  
so I'd like to express my five pence worth. But first, and without  
wanting to sound 'diplomatic' nor 'patronising' i'd like to thank Shiar  
and the others involved in this proposal for having a go in replying  
the Shift's bullshit article. Also I think the response is well  
researched, and as usual when Shiar is involved, well written.

I also think that the Shift's article is very bad, very badly written,  
cutting and pasting stuff together so to suit a specific discourse (one  
which seems to emanate from a hatred to indymedia and what it stands  
for) but above all, i think that publishing this sort of article, with  
a sort of headline (title) very similar to what most mainstream media  
would use (specially the tabloids) is politically idiotic .. almost  
beyond belief.

I've been aware about Shift since the fist issue, and to me it has  
always had this pseudo-intellectual feel attached to it. A sort of the  
typical academic attitude of detachment from 'actually doing things'  
and just observing what others do from the outside .. well more like  
from above, as if they knew so much better. An attitude of being much  
more concerned about getting some of the spot light than actually  
contributing in building up self-sustained structures that advance  
towards real (in terms of 'actually existing') forms of grass roots  
autonomy. That's a very easy and selfish position. They are obviously  
aware that not many people knows about Shift, so a headline saying "why  
indymedia uk is losing support' obviously aims to help shifting as much  
copies of the magazine as possible - the usual corporate's tactic. If  
the article really wanted to make a 'positive contribution to whatever  
debate' then it would definitely not have been put together in such a  
pernicious way, and it should have involved a degree of dialogue with  
imc-uk.

Again, this is typical of pseudo academia, which is much more  
interested in massaging their own egos and keeping their arses well  
placed in institutions than actually getting involved in 'building  
movement' (although not all academia / all academics are the same of  
course) Shift can lecture us in their editorials about what capitalism  
is and what it is not (as if they knew better) They can criticise  
decisions other parts of the movement take (for example that the  
location of last year's climate camp was so bad) or can bash projects  
such indymedia without trying to address what it tries to do, why and  
how (OP) But what purpose does all this criticism serve? What do they  
actually contribute to the movement(s) struggling for radical social  
change - or whatever other descriptions one likes to use? What real  
purpose does it serve to bash one of the existing bits of self  
sustained and alternative bits of the movement's own grass-roots  
infrastructure?

The same thing has happened before, and again as a result of some  
'academics' work in some Welsh univesrsity (i think) Similarly to this  
case, they never got genuinely involved with the project during their  
research (i think they call it field work in their jargon) They just  
observed, lurked on the main lists, and then they cut and pasted  
material as they pleased, and decontextualized discussions / issues so  
to suit the sort of discourse they set out to put forward for their own  
personal gains. See here if you can stomach another bullshit article of  
this sort: "CRYPTO-HIERARCHY AND ITS DISCONTENTS. INDYMEDIA U. K."
http://www.docs.indymedia.org/pub/Global/ImcEssayCollection/ 
CHAPTER10JonesandRoyston.pdf

Therefore, and going to the point of our discussion (apologies for my  
rant btw) the same as others have expressed in this list, I believe  
that publishing the proposed response in the middle column would only  
add in making Shift's article more prominent, and even worse, it would  
aid in giving credibility / legitimacy to such a stupid piece of shit.

Also, the article is currently not available on the web, and apparently  
it will not be until later in the summer (ohh .. such an open and  
'alternative'  way of making media available to people .. first pay the  
£1.80 (+ 50p postage&packaging in the UK, 80p overseas) and then, a few  
months later, we'll make it available to everyone .. yup, a very  
radical form of media production and knowledge sharing this is!)  
Therefore, o why put the spot light to it now?

In fact there are also some bits in the proposed response that I  
disagree with, but I don't think i should go on for much longer in this  
mail :-) Generally speaking they are about focussing so much on the  
'Aztmon's affair' again, as well as the bit about 'conspiracy  
theories', but it is also true that the response generally manages to   
dismantle Shift's crap arguments.

But let me repeat that the fact that I personally disagree with some  
bits is not the reason why I would not like it in he middle column  
though, even though now it is not anymore a 'collective response from  
imc-uk. I would be much happier with using this - or better, a  
collective developed response from it - later on, when the actual Shift  
article is accessible online and it is then inevitably copied and  
pasted on the wire by someone. I think that a response then would make  
much more sense, and it would be much more effective. Meanwhile lets  
leave it for people that actually manage to get a copy of the article  
decide by themselves if the article is worth their time or not.

Ok, cheers
maqui