[Imc-uk-network] ESRC funded research project on Indymedia UK]

[planet-mail at aktivix.org]

Hi,

- having read all this i'm now adding my view, bit long though, sorry.

I've known about this project for over a year and a half - i think i found out
about it around the time of the G8 in scotland, but can't remember exactly.

Maybe I should have said something on imc lists about it sooner, but the project
involved people who have been both friends and imc/alt media colleagues, and
that made it difficult for me to comment.

I don't remember when i found out about the actual £40,000+ grant itself, but i
do remember being told originally that the idea was to produce things that
would be of use / support, in a groovey activist researchy way. 

I also remember stressing to one person that the key thing, of vital importance,
was to inform the 'sovereign' indymedia uk lists that the project was
happening, had secured some funding, and that it intended to at least, in part,
study indymedia (btw when i first heard about it, it was framed as alternative
media with a focus on indymedia, and perhaps the g8 in scotland). 

I also thought this was of paramount importance because back then at least one
person who had worked on indymedia uk projects for a few years was involved,
and that it would surely lead to complaints later down the line if a
transparent approach was not taken from the outset (esp with £40K sloshing
around). I also said that I would probably not get involved at all, and
certainly wouldn't unless the project was introduced the the main indy uk email
lists.

It was quite a long time after this that I actualy saw the alt-media-res ESRC
grant award outline and understood that the entire project was sold to the
funders as being all about Indymedia (global network).

This made me initially angry at the time. Esp because indy uk runs on
comparatively little money, generated through donations, benefits and hard
work. When I think that before the G8 in scotland Indy was relatively skint and
spent about 3.5K on the entire G8 reporting operation, I reckon it puts
£40,000+ into perspective.

So, £40,000 of government funding was awarded to this project to study Indymedia
in general, and yet during the first year, no official email was ever sent
introducing this project to the Indymedia UK network.

People who worked on Indymedia were involved, and they too failed to notify the
main indy uk lists about the project (seemingly prefering to approach, or
communicate with, individuals in private).

For somebody like me, who knew about the project (and who knew some of the
people) I didn't want to write to an imc list saying - look have you seen this!
And to be honest, I really thought they would write and introduce the project
in due time.

As it worked out, the project changed, and very little of the total output has
been about Indymedia. 

I'd like to stress that I think the project has done some enormously productive
and important work. For example attending, and then organising one of the
re-transmission series of international video events, solid work on the
IFIwatch website and network development, as well as media production and study
of the same in palestine, plus attendance at events like the Knowledge lab and
Clearer Channel video activist meeting. All very good worthwhile stuff.

Regarding actual research production on indymedia itself, there have been a
couple of interviews done with imc people (folks from aussie CAT, climate imc,
and imc poland), and the imc uk chronology as notified to the imc uk lists.

There have been several ideas floated that I'm aware of that never happened, and
one that may still be ongoing according to the project wiki: "We are also
looking at the history of online organizing processes in the UK indymedia
collectives. We are using publically list archives to do this".

There have also been several written pieces and presentations on Indymedia that
have been done by members of the project team. These include the explanatory
definition of "Indymedia" in the 'Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice'
published by Sage, and presentations given at the School of Development
Studies, University of East Anglia; Oxford Internet Institute, University of
Oxford; and Goodenough College, University of London.

The other two points I'd pick out for mention is that my experience of this has
almost entirely come from personal conversations. This was problematic in that
you hear about things in anecdotal form, as ideas, mooted plans, opinions,
essentially from conversations with individuals. And that makes it incredibly
hard to be sure of what you're hearing, or to be sure you have the full
picture, especially when you hear things you disagree with, or where there are
some personal arguements (which there were in this case).

I honestly believe this could have been avoided if a proper transparent
introduction to the one or two main uk network lists (eg network and process)
had been sent at the early stages of the project. The way it worked out, meant
that some good opportunities either for discussion or projects were lost.

This leads me on to the other point, which is that (and now I am re-telling
anecdotes, so can't be 100% sure, but think it too important not to mention)
one of the problems around 'informing the imc lists' was that one or more
people in the organising group of the alt-media-res project thought it not
necessary to make such an official introduction to the imc lists, since they
were involved and contributing to indymedia, and as such were indymedia
themselves, and thus Indymedia was already 'informed'.

Now, not wanting to to go off on one (cos this is an issue that can be discussed
again and again - eg who is indymedia - we are all indymedia! - four legs good,
two legs bad - activist media or media activists? etc etc etc), but there were
clearly different perceptions about what constitutes "indymedia". 

I reckon the "list-based" indymedia and infrequent network meetings along with
local collective meetings are what constitute the sovereign (crap word I know)
decision making mechanisms of Indymedia uk, and thus are what constitute
"Indymedia" when the term is used in any official-ish capacity. And in this
case I don't think there is any doubt that the project should have informed the
main lists at an early opportunity, or presented itself at a suitable meeting.

Sure the demarcation lines are blured and often sometimes deliberatly so, but in
this case, with a funding proposal netting £40K to study Indymedia, I think
it's pretty damn obvious! - let alone thinking about how to develop the
project, or ask for suggestions, submissions or inputs, or offer an equitable /
transparent opportunity to get a slice of the pie!

That said, there are very valid general criticisms of inydmedia in terms of
process, or rather the problems of gaining consensus or arriving at decisions
or implementations - and to some extent I can see good reasons why people might
wish to persue some projects outside of indymedia structures.

Anyway, I also know that there has been a lot of heartache for some people
involved, a fair bit of pain, accusations and even stand up shouting at public
meetings about this, so I'm not interested in furthering bad felings. For note
i haven't referenced particular names in this mail cos I don't think it
particularly useful to do so.

Looking forward, it has reinforced my view that often large chunks of money
cause arguements, that transparency (and therefore the opportunity to
participate) is a value or form or politics which indymedia (in my experience
of it) values highly, that it often gaulls me to see academics getting big
funding to write about indymedia when I know so many people in Indymedia can
write well (and do write well) about indymedia itself, and that academic
research can often come with some unique challenges when it focuses on areas
the researchers are involved in - AND, as such, all of these things need
treating carefully when they come up, and deserve to be discussed openly and
honestly by all concerned, and that if ignored, almost always lead to bad
vibes.

Still, as said, nice to see some very good stuff come out of the project, but an
apology wouldn't go amiss either... - from my side, i'm sorry i didn't say this
earlier.

ciao,
dave