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

[Garcon du Monde]

phunkee wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I think we could do with some clarification about some of the concerns 
> you've articulated here.
> 
> 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 also cited at least two other sources, other than wikipedia.
additionally, i suggested that _both_ phrases being used in the article
would be more balanced. you seem to have misunderstood this.

> 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, but if I think back to the points you made about using the 
> term 'notorious vivsectors' then
> I think it's at odds with most of the topic pages we have that reflect 
> on-going struggles and are informed by ideologies.

perhaps the topic pages are at odds with what indymedia has said in the
past? i'm not going to go digging through the archives as i haven't the
time at present, but it might be something that should be talked about
more generally. or maybe i'm just misunderstanding what you're saying?

chris wrote:
> 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 agree with you that indymedia "clearly states its subjectivity."
however, that was not done in this article as it was proposed.

i will also point out that the concerns i raised in my previous email in
the second section have not, i don't think, been address by any of the
other responses in this thread.

solidarity,

	--gdm





-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/attachments/20090204/0efbf583/attachment.pgp