[IMC-UK-Features] Feature proposal: SHAC To Shakedown Financial Investors In The City

[anargeek]

Hi

On Tue 03-Feb-2009 at 11:18:51AM +0000, phunkee wrote:
> 
> Namely your objection to the use of 'notorious
> vivisectors' and proposing what you refer to as an
> 'alternative phrasing' of 'animal experimentation' as a
> more 'balanced view'.
> 
> You cite wikipedia as a source for 'animal
> experimentation', which seems at odds with your other
> concern about using dubious sources. I'd seriously
> reconsider whether Wikipedia's NPOV stance on any
> politically contested terms are appropriate sources for
> Indymedia UK's middle column features.

I agree, a lot of the time on Wikipedia, NPOV appears to
be a Neo-con Point Of View -- we should use the language
of the campaigns, there is a "Animal Liberation" topic and
a "SHAC" topic, what's the problem with articles for these
topics using the terminology that the activists use? 

Why should we try to "be more balanced" -- remember this?

  While the mainstream media conceal their manifold biases
  and alignments, we clearly state our position. Indymedia
  UK does not attempt to take an objective and impartial
  standpoint: Indymedia UK clearly states its
  subjectivity.

  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/mission.html

> I also think this needs some clarification:
> 
> Garcon du Monde wrote:
> 
> ''indymedia has in the past been very clear that we do
> not promote a particular political ideology but instead
> reports on events that have happened."
> 
> I understand this in the context of promoting reports
> rather than annoucements

Well, it is often news that there are to be events in the
future and after a lot of people have been locked up that
the campaign is continuning does appear to be news.

If people are still objecting to this being on the front
page what if UK isn't ticked and it's just on the SHAC and
Animal Liberation pages?

Personally I don't have a problem with it being on the
front page.

Chris

-- 
http://anargeek.net/