[www-features] Re: iraq proposal

[GarconDuMonde]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



sfschism at riseup.net wrote:

|>one caveat: there are some suggestions that the women have already been
|>killed - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3683022.stm - i think this
|>should be taken into consideration if an article is written.
|
| well, this is part of the point: enough time has passed that now the story
| is significantly altered.  While we have been discussing this,
| yes, maybe they are now dead.  I am not clear whether or not people are
| saying this is another reason why this shouldn't be covered or if it is a
| reason it should be covered.


yeah, i wasn't trying to say that we shouldn't have the article - i
think the more articles the better, so i would definitely say go for it!
i just wanted to make sure it was as up-to-date as possible - and
therefore as good and as relevant as we can make it :-)

and in response to tibi, who wrote, "please, this is not confermed. Un
ponte per (the ong for which the 4 hostages worked) has asked not to use
false news: this can be part of a media war."

all i was trying to suggest was that the mainstream media are saying
they are already dead. personally, i don't know much/anything about the
situation - and so i think this point that tibi is making is actually
news itself: that 'un ponte per' have made a statement... consequently,
i think that we *should* speak about it - and definitely put it in the
right way.

| Whatever people feel about the Guardian, my point was that Naomi Klein ...

again, i would agree with the statements about naomi klein. however, it
is one thing if she were to write to us and say, 'hey, here's an article
i've written and it's copyleft so please use it if you can,' and a
totally different thing if we see a good article on some corporate
website and then just print it verbatim on our own. perhaps, instead,
the way to do it would be like this:

<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/NaomiKleinArticle">Naomi Klein
Article about Iraq</a>

or something similar to that. i.e. make a link. cos otherwise, why don't
we reprint all the other decent articles that appear on other people's
sites around the world and the web??

personally, i am anti using links to mainstream media or corporations
(i.e. pretty much and dot.com) from the part of a feature that would
appear on the front page - i.e. in the abstract. i am happy to
compromise on the main body (and, occasionally, on the abstract part),
but i am completely against just quoting verbatim an entire article. a
further consideration to this is: why should indymedia volunteers be
used to translate mainstream media articles - which is essentially what
copying a mainstream article and using it in the body of a feature is
asking?

of course, if you want to post it as a comment, i wouldn't object ;-)

love and solidarity,

	--gdm


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBU3JDPmhFiuP6og8RAgQpAJ9EpfHuqqH1XUroQT/3EVPQ17tRrgCgsWQz
KIGM0wsHFDsG6rJnppur+Ws=
=bRNc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----