[IMC-UK-Features] [FEAT PROPOSAL]: Posts from UK Government Gateways to UK Indymedia

[Nobody]

Well JD

Your argument follows the same kind of line as the 303 posts it is,  
it seems intended to demoralise.
Fine go party with your chums at Network X do ya thing.

Seeya

On 27 Jan 2011, at 19:12, theinnercityhippy at riseup.net wrote:

> Hi
>
> In terms of the grand scheme of things, and the plethora of other news
> sites out there it's a fair statement that Indymedia is pretty  
> obscure -
> even within the activist scene.
>
> At the network X gathering which was attended by hundreds of activists
> from across the spectrum, very few people had heard of Indymedia  
> which is
> in one sense a failing on our part to reach out to a broader  
> audience, but
> also an opportunity for outreach which we can grasp to improve the  
> quality
> of this resource.
>
> This is why I am suggesting a higher standard of journalism to be made
> here and trying to avoid a personalised thread which benefits noone.
>
> The ability to take fair criticism is as essential as being able to
> criticise the powers that be imho
>
> anyone else up for working together on this?
>
> JimDog
>
>> Hi
>> I won't collaborate with anyone that refers to IM UK as an
>>
>> "obscure news site"
>>
>> Take your plausible deniability elsewhere.
>>
>> Cheers
>> On 27 Jan 2011, at 18:45, theinnercityhippy at riseup.net wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, I can't see what your point is. That would only be
>>> applicable if
>>> everyone actually agreed the text you published.
>>>
>>> This isn't a case of bias towards or away from a predefined
>>> structure, it
>>> is saying in an objective manner that both both arguments conclude
>>> that
>>> what has happened here is bad and a breach of public trust by a
>>> heirarchical structure, those conclusions can be reached by opposing
>>> methodologies of research.
>>>
>>> In a simple sense, either the government definitely posted those
>>> comments,
>>> or someone who the government was meant to have checked out
>>> according to
>>> their own guidelines and take ultimate responsibility for is wasting
>>> everyones time by trolling an obscure news site.
>>>
>>> That is not indicative of any kind of non-bias towards or away from
>>> capitalist structures, rather an admission that the evidence
>>> presented is
>>> currently at best flaky.
>>>
>>> So, other than Phunkee, would anyone else like to work on a wording
>>> for
>>> this? Or are you refusing to create a collaborative feature in
>>> breach of
>>> another part of the mission statement:
>>>
>>> "The Indymedia UK website provides an interactive platform for  
>>> reports
>>> from the struggles for a world based on freedom, cooperation,
>>> justice and
>>> solidarity"
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> "The 24-hour rule ensures that everybody can contribute to the  
>>> middle
>>> column and allows time for collaborative improvements and
>>> considerations."
>>>
>>> It's not ok to cherry pick parts of our process you agree with and
>>> disregard the others. Also, personalising this is pretty petty in my
>>> opinion. Please stick to the topic. Thanks
>>>
>>> JD
>>>
>>>> On 27/01/2011 16:16, Garcon du Monde wrote:
>>>>> hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> just to comment that i think the discussion between  
>>>>> freethepeeps and
>>>>> jimdog is really good: i'm enjoying seeing both sides of this  
>>>>> debate
>>>>> clearly elaborated with some evidence to support the differing
>>>>> points of
>>>>> view. thank you both for the time you are taking with the
>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>
>>>> Representing both sides of an argument, might be perceived as
>>>> 'objective' by the mainstream media, but it's not something many
>>>> of us
>>>> can relate to in terms of Indymedia.
>>>>
>>>> I'd be interested to hear how this sits with our mission statement:
>>>>
>>>> 'Inherent in the mainstream corporate media is a strong bias  
>>>> towards
>>>> Capitalism's power structures, and it is an important tool in
>>>> propagating these structures around the globe. 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.'
>>>> --
>>>> Indymedia United Kollektives editorial mid-column features
>>>> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-features
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Indymedia United Kollektives editorial mid-column features
>>> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-features
>>
>> --
>> Indymedia United Kollektives editorial mid-column features
>> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-features
>>
>
>
> --
> Indymedia United Kollektives editorial mid-column features
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-features