[IMC-UK-Features] Response to Shift's email, was Re: hello

[wietse]

Well said Shiar !

Wietse

-------------->

Shiar wrote:

> Dear Shift editors,
>
> As one who of those who contributed to the IMCists' response
> (https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399412.html) to your
> allegations about Indymedia UK, i am as disappointed with your email adn
> comment as i was with your editorial and article. Once again, you have
> proved your incredible ability to misread and misinterpret things,
> misquote and take things out of context and, above all, be so arrogant.
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2008 8:10 am, Shift Editors wrote:
>   
>> We try to pick
>> up controversies in 'the anti-capitalist movement' that we think are worth
>> discussing openly.
>>     
>
> Where did you get from the idea that discussions within and about
> Indymedia were ever not open? All our meetings and lists are open and
> publicly archived and anyone is welcome to participate. Your admission
> that you "pick up controversies" is quite telling, though.
>
>   
>> Not to rubbish anyone's project but because
>> (self)criticism and reflection can only make us stronger.
>>     
>
> Well, i'm not sure how you can call slagging off someone and accusing them
> of all sort of shit (from outside and above) as "(self)criticism". You
> didn't even contact us before publishing your article to get "the other
> side of the story", or even to notify us, like any respectable
> journalist/editor or researcher would do.
>
>   
>> Of course we
>> also have editorial principles, which seem to differ from yours mainly
>> over the concepts of religion, nation and racism.
>>     
>
> First, you cannot compare an open publishing site with an edited print
> magazine. Second, I'm not sure how different they are except that you seem
> to have quite typical Western/leftist/academic/patronising and sometimes
> politically naive criterias and values by which you *judge* other people's
> struggles.
>
>   
>> Many people we know from
>> No Borders, the Climate Camp and others have actively welcomed this
>> effort, even when being criticised. (We also had positive feedback about
>> the Go Hamas Go article.)
>>     
>
> I probably know most of the "many" you seem to rely upon in your "effort".
> I'm sure there are so many more who did not/will not welcome your effort
> (and you've also had such negative feedback now, if you've been following
> this list and the comments thread on our response, which i'm sure you
> have).
>
>   
>> You can harldly have missed that there is
>> discontent with your editorial choices: the resignations, the number of
>> critical comments that you hide etc. Many activists we know are frustrated
>> or angry (clearly you must also have noted that?).
>>     
>
> You can hardly miss how disappointed Indymedia volunteers and readers
> alike were with your editorial and article. Does that tell you anything?
> (not about you -forget about yourselves for a minute!- but about Indymedia
> and how people perceive it?
>
>   
>> Apparently, our
>> approach has failed. We wanted to intervene in a debate over the nature of
>> anti-semitism, conspiracy theories, religious and hierarchical liberation
>> movements etc, and their relationships to the radical Left.
>>     
>
> It has failed, indeed. Hopefully you have learned a lesson as to why.
>
>   
>> Instead, you
>> respond by producing statistics but ignore the difficult questions we
>> raise. That's a shame, but now you know more about our motives.
>>     
>
> It seems it is one of your favourite "editorial principles" to distort and
> misrepresent things? The stats were to respond to some of your allegations
> that had to do with quantity. The "difficult questions" you raise were
> also addressed, if you read the response properly. And in any case, the
> stats-related arguments were probably less that 1/10 of the overall
> article (that's another stat for you!).
>
>   
>> Let us know if you decide to respond.
>>     
>
> So that 3,800+ word article was banging our head against a brick wall?
> Would you be open and courageous enough to publish it in your magazine and
> on your website?
>
>   
>> in critical solidarity, Shift www.shiftmag.co.uk
>>     
>
> Funny that is. I wish you really had some "critical solidarity" before
> doing what you did.
>
> ---
> Shiar
>
>
> P.S. There's a lot in your comment on the newswire
> (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399412.html?c=on#c196209) that
> also deserves responding to. But, to be honest, i don't want to waste more
> time on this and i think the comments posted there have already done that.
> I would specifically draw your attention to these ones:
> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399412.html?c=on#c196213
> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399412.html?c=on#c196219
> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399412.html?c=on#c196239
>
>
>
> --
> Indymedia United Kollektives editorial: features and wire moderation
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-features
>
>