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

[Shiar]

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