What's the Matter with Indymedia? : Melbourne Indymedia

What's the Matter with Indymedia?

By Jennifer Whitney
LiP Magazine
July 26, 2005

In the last week of November 1999, a news website run entirely by volunteers was launched. "Don't hate the media; be the media" was the battle cry of hundreds of people who converged in Seattle to bring about the birth of the Independent Media Center (IMC, or Indymedia). The project promised the democratization of the media, and more: "Imperfect, insurgent, sleepless and beautiful, we directly experienced the success of the first IMC in Seattle and saw that the common dream of 'a world in which many worlds fit' is possible," wrote media activist and Seven Stories Press editor Greg Ruggiero. The idea was contagious. Almost 6 years on, there are 149 Indymedia websites in about 45 countries on 6 continents.

The newborn IMC provided the most in-depth and broad-spectrum coverage of the historic direct actions against the World Trade Organization that fall. Despite having no advertising budget, no brand recognition, no corporate sponsorship, and no celebrity reporters, it received 1.5 million hits in its first week--more than CNN got in the same time. Its innovative "open publishing" newswire meant that anyone with computer access could be a reporter. The user-friendly software allowed people to publish directly online, and since more than 450 people got IMC press passes (and scores more reported from their homes), they provided coverage of the historic protests from every block of downtown Seattle. Audio, video, photos, and articles were uploaded at a breathtaking pace. The site embraced the do-it-yourself ethic completely, meaning that there were no restrictive site managers, editors, or word-count limits. At the time, such restrictions seemed dictatorial, oppressive--counterrevolutionary, even. Now, I find them rather appealing.

The open publishing newswire, once filled with breaking stories and photographic evidence refuting government lies, now contains more spam than an old email account. On many sites, it's difficult to find original reporting among the right-wing diatribes and rants about chemtrails poisoning the atmosphere. Coverage of local protests often consists of little more than a few blurry photos of cops doing nothing in particular, without a single line of text explaining the context, the issues, or the goals of the protest. And forget about analysis or investigative reporting. They tend to be as rare on Indymedia as they are on Fox News.

This isn't to suggest that I've avoided Indymedia as a journalist, or that I disagree with its mission--neither are true. I've worked with various IMCs over the years during big protests, mostly as a reporter, and mostly secondarily to the various actions I was involved with. In 1999, I met early on with some of the founders of the first IMC, who wanted an outside perspective on what they were cooking up. In 2001, I covered the Zapatista caravan for the Chiapas, UK, and Seattle sites; later that year I worked in the IMC during the protests against the G8 summit in Genoa, taking phoned-in reports from the streets, confirming them, plotting movements on maps, and posting the news. In Cancún I did support work in the IMC during the 2003 WTO actions, as well as some reporting. In Miami, during the Free Trade Area of the Americas protests that same year, I reported for the short-lived paper and the website. And last summer in El Alto, Bolivia, I worked with locals on covering an important federal election.

On the anniversary of the Iraq invasion earlier this year, I was in Mexico, trying to get information about antiwar protests around the United States. I looked at IMC sites based in cities where I knew there were actions, and found nothing. Eventually, I found what I was looking for--on the BBC. The experience, unfortunately, is not uncommon. Each time I try and find news among the Indymedia drivel, I ask myself the same question: What happens when--in our attempts not to hate the media but to be it--we end up hating the media we've become?

I know I'm not alone in my frustration with IMCs. "I haven't looked at Indymedia in over a year," says the editor of a nationally distributed radical magazine. "Indymedia? It's completely irrelevant," a talented documentary filmmaker tells me. "I let the IMC use my photos but I don't ever read it," says a freelance photojournalist. More and more, independent media makers (even those who occasionally publish on or are affiliated with an IMC) don't even bother looking for news on Indymedia. And for good reason: Indymedia news "coverage" is often lifted from corporate media websites, with occasional editorial remarks added. Some IMC sites limit this type of reporting to a specific section, and there it can lead to informative discussion and criticism. But most seem to rely on it to fill column space in the newswire. This isn't making media, it's cutting and pasting--relying on so-called experts and professionals to do what you are, evidently, too lazy or busy to do yourself. The few original articles are frequently riddled with unsubstantiated claims, rumors, dubious anonymous sources, bad writing, and/or plagiarism. Rarely is anything edited--and I don't mean by the collective that runs the site. Users themselves aren't editing their own work, but instead are posting 18 blurry, almost identically bad photographs, or thesis-length uninformed opinion pieces that weren't even spell checked. Verified facts are an endangered species on Indymedia, and arguments in support of fact-checking are often met with cries of "Censorship!" To make matters worse, Indymedia articles are usually posted anonymously (and therefore unaccountably), with no way to offer feedback other than the flame-ridden fray of the comments section. If the goal of Indymedia is, as its mission statement says, "the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of the truth," we are clearly falling short.

Perhaps it's useful to ask what constitutes effective communication. By any remotely sane definition, both telling and receiving are necessary. But the burden to communicate effectively belongs to the active party--the teller--not the audience. This is as true in one-on-one settings as it is in mass media. But the Indymedia mission doesn't mention audience. Instead it's all about the creation and the telling. Maybe this is, in part, where the problem lies. With the focus placed so strongly on the "tellings of the truth," the reader/watcher/listener is left to fend for herself. And if we have so little respect or concern for our audience, what on earth are we doing working in a medium based entirely in communication?

It's also a question of intent. I want my work to contribute to social change. And I sometimes end up a perfectionist, knowing that the better my work is, the greater an impact it will have. People don't read sloppy, unedited, or disorganized stories; they don't look at bad photographs or videos. And so the potential to have an impact is greatly diminished. This isn't a philosophical question about whether trees make sounds when falling in forests. Simply put, an unread article changes nothing.

And if we change nothing, not only have we failed in our responsibility to our audience, we have failed our subject as well. If I'm writing about a social movement, I am accountable to the people who trust me with their stories. I want my article to help them, not hurt them. When I'm writing about a particular issue, I want to inform and inspire others to get involved in learning more and maybe working on that issue also. Making media is a bit like scattering seeds, in that we never know where our work will end up--if it will germinate, take root, and spread; if it will survive fire or drought; if others will notice and propagate it. We should put out the hardiest and healthiest seeds that we can, so the information stored within will have a better chance at survival.

While all IMC collectives across the global network are individual and autonomous, there are certain commonalities that hold them together. The website layout and navigation tends to be quite similar, the process of uploading material tends to work the same way, and most use the same software. There are a few that stand out in various ways--some have more intensive editing, a few publish newspapers or have radio stations, and some are deeply linked to the communities they serve. Most people I've spoken with agree that the Portland, Oregon, site stands out a lot. Portland is known worldwide for getting technical resources and website security to other collectives in the network. In addition to their own site, they also generously host the US national site. And they have other policies that set them apart as well--but in quite different ways.

In many IMC collectives, the editing vs. free speech dichotomy is argued as hotly as abortion is debated by members of congregations and Congress. It's a debate that I imagine any group with open publishing would have to face. Many sites have explicit policies about what sorts of material will remain visible on their sites. Chicago has a policy of editing or hiding posts that are "racist, sexist, homophobic, or that clearly fly in the face of our mission to serve as a space for the exchange of news, dialogue and opinion that advances economic and social justice. Posts that serve as commercials for for-profit companies will be removed." They then go on to explain the reason for this: Right-wing and fascist organizations have a history of targeting Indymedia sites, despite having plenty of their own forums in which to post. Chicago's policy is clear, and they seem to stick to it. And they are not an exception--it's quite common across the network to hide such posts rapidly. (Hidden posts do not appear in the newswire but are available for the curious through a link.)

Portland has a similar policy in writing, but it sometimes seems more a formality than a reflection of practices. In the 1980s the city was a mecca for fascists and neonazis who beat an Ethiopian immigrant to death in 1988, and were subsequently driven out of town or underground. When I lived there in 2001, they briefly reemerged, and began using the Indymedia site to post recruitment messages for Volksfront--a white-supremacist, neonazi organization--as well as announcements of an upcoming meeting and concert featuring White Aryan Resistance leader Tom Metzger. Several antifascist organizers contacted the editorial group in an effort to have the posts hidden. Our requests were denied; we were told that we were undermining free speech by requesting censorship, and were invited to post messages in response to the fascists' recruitment efforts. To us, this was inadequate. Let the ACLU protect neonazis' free speech rights--they were using a community resource to spread their hate-based propaganda, and we wanted it stopped immediately.

Though that level of fascist material has not been seen on the site recently, it is unclear if this is due to the nazis going back underground or due to a policy shift at Portland Indymedia. To my knowledge, there hasn't been anything like the Volksfront postings; however, in the last 13 months, the Portland IMC has hosted at least 7 articles by or in support of antisemitic cult leader Lyndon LaRouche, the most recent from April of this year. This, combined with the frequency of conspiracy theories about 9/11, mixed in with the occasional nostalgic ode to Kurt Cobain or oddball spoof on the fundamentalist-Rapturist Left Behind book series, seriously undermines the Portland site's usefulness.

Another Portland anomaly that detracts from its utility is the reorganization of links to other cities' Indymedia sites. Whereas most Indymedia sites list the links alphabetically by continent and country, Portland has come up with some geography- and logic-defying categories that make it absurdly difficult to find things. According to their creative cartography, St. Louis is in the "Mississippi Delta," despite the fact that the actual delta is confined to the southernmost tip of Louisiana, and the nearest Indymedia site is based over 80 miles away in New Orleans. The "Great North Woods" is not where my intuition tells me to look for New York City, and inexplicably, Tijuana is listed not with Mexico, but with the "South West" area of "Turtle Island"-- described by Portland Indymedia as an indigenous term for North America. San Francisco is also in the southwest. But not Arizona. If you click on "why this cities list," you'll find an explanation of the rationale behind the restructuring process (capitalization is in the original): "The cities list has been broken up heavily to make it easier to know where a particular imc is in the world.... The basic idea was to make the categories more defining of an area and ultimately align indymedias that would be working through similar regional issues, instead of continuing the socio-political lines that have always defined the cities list." Later on, the (anonymous) authors proudly state that they spent 15 hours working on the list. Fifteen hours, apparently without consulting a map.

There are certain etiquettes established by the very nature of Indymedia. Because so much of the work is online, collectives are able to network with other groups all across the planet, wherever there are internet connections and, when necessary, translators. While this is obviously a great strength, it can also be one of the most debilitating weaknesses, as people often act differently online than when they are face-to-face.

Ana Nogueira, who works with US Indymedia, grew weary of this dynamic. "After four years of working on this stuff I got really frustrated and burnt out by the lack of accountability. The spontaneity of the IMC could be held back by some stranger blocking a proposal from somewhere, anonymously. I originally proposed [the creation of] the US site [in order to allow the Global site to be more balanced, and less US-centric] two years ago, and it was blocked and blocked. You have to be really determined to see something through; you can't be too sensitive. People can be really curt and obnoxious on email, because they don't have to see you in person."

This may be a factor in some tensions in Mexico City between the IMC collective and other radical independent media groups. The Mexico City IMC has a policy of having meetings only online, never face-to-face. And they have acted in ways that seem territorial, even competitive, with another local media collective, Informative Action in Resistance (AIRE, in its Spanish acronym), that has worked closely with Indymedia centers in Monterrey, Cancún, and Guadalajara during actions. AIRE has received unsigned nasty emails from Indymedia Mexico City, in one case accusing AIRE of being "pseudo-activists playing with electronic toys."

"It's no good launching attacks on each other and using the tools of the right wing when we're trying to make a new form of communication," says María Martínez of AIRE. "There are so many independent radio projects and media projects in this huge city. We want to work with everybody, but not when they attack us like this." Earlier this year, AIRE sent some of its members to Brazil for the World Social Forum, where they met with some Brazil IMC folks. When word got back to Mexico City Indymedia, they were angry, apparently claiming that AIRE had no right to connect with the Indymedia network. This kind of territorial behavior can be more destructive than any of the outside forces and challenges we face. This is particularly true in the monstropolis of Mexico City, where radical organizations are already atomized due to geography and time constraints, and where sharing resources isn't only philosophically principled, but absolutely essential.

Another challenge inherent in the Indymedia form is that participation, as well as passive consumption, requires not only patience and a thick skin, but also internet access. Certain local groups have breached the digital divide, even if only for a brief spell. Seattle set a strong precedent during the week of the WTO protests by printing 2,000 copies of the daily paper The Blind Spot and distributing them on the streets during the actions. The paper was also available online, and was downloaded in Brussels, where 8,000 more copies were distributed. The Seattle IMC also streamed a radio broadcast that was picked up by Radio Havana and broadcast across Cuba. Additionally, they produced a nightly program that ran on public access television. Many other IMCs have followed suit during actions; what's more challenging is maintaining a presence when there isn't the momentum, surge of volunteers, and extra cash flow that an action can bring.

And cash flow is a huge issue. Many collectives, from London to Bolivia, have produced short-lived newspapers. But print is not cheap, and fundraising isn't one of the sexier parts of independent journalism. We're always short on money, and then when we do have any, it tends to come with controversy. "We have a larger budget than most," says John Tarleton of The Indypendent, the New York City IMC newspaper. "We've had a paid staff for the last few years, so it has been possible for us to do more. We weren't the first newspaper to take advertisements, but it was a really controversial decision. People often have a fear that money will corrupt everything, and that's certainly something to be mindful of, but having no money is also really debilitating."

Because Indymedia is such a broad and diffuse network, decision making across the planet can be tediously slow and sometimes results in painful and frustrating situations. A few years ago, the Ford Foundation awarded Indymedia a grant of $50,000 to fund a global Indymedia conference. But there were some in the network who didn't want to accept the corporate money, and ultimately the grant had to be declined.

There's also the very real factor of laziness. It's a lot easier to block decisions than to resolve a conflict, find a compromise, let go of our precious ideologies and opinions in favor of the group's effectiveness, and move the fuck forward. It's much easier to critique new ideas than to take on a task and complete it on a deadline. Anyone who's done radical organizing or independent media has almost certainly dealt with people who attach themselves to already existing projects or works in progress, contribute nothing themselves, and then exercise a veto over anything that comes up. If our goal is to make powerful, transformative, effective media, we have to learn to neutralize these problem people--even by voting them out of the collective, if necessary. Our effectiveness and sustainability depend on resolving such conflicts and forging ahead. As Luis Gómez of the Narco News website says, "A good journalist doesn't create problems, but rather, solves them." And sometimes Indymedia just seems to lack enough good journalists.

Perhaps this has something to do with the word journalist. After all, one of the points of Indymedia is to show that anyone can be a journalist, that anyone can tell a story, and that anyone can create media. But is that really true? Sure, digital video and still cameras get cheaper and easier to use all the time. And with the widespread availability of the internet, more Americans than ever are writing. But ease of use does not equal quality product. I don't mean that every comment on every article should be carefully crafted and edited (although I do believe that every computer does have, somewhere within its hard drive, some form of spellchecking software). And I don't mean that an article shouldn't be published if it doesn't have a gripping lead, an explicit nut graf, and a zinger of an ending, or if it doesn't conform to AP pyramid style. It isn't the lack of journalistic style or convention that irks me. It's the lack of journalistic principles, and the laziness. People seem to forget that writing and photography are skills that people develop over many years. They are not unattainable, they are not rocket science--but it's the worst sort of arrogance to think that your very first article, unedited, should make it to the front page. And it's laziness that keeps people perpetually posting without ever making an effort to develop their skills.

New York Indymedia is one collective that teaches people to become good journalists. "We've had lots of community reporting workshops," says Tarleton, "and people have come in off the street with little or no experience, but burning with a story they want to tell. Sometimes it takes them several months to write their first story, but they stick it out. We do a lot of skill sharing--people who want to communicate their ideas can get better at it. Anyone who sticks it out for six months or so can be writing regular news stories. The bottom line is that articles have to be well-written, accurate, fairly nonrhetorical, and convey radical ideas through quality writing and research. If half are good and half are shit, the crappy stories discredit everything else."

The Indypendent got a lot of criticism for its rigorous selection and editing process, with many people believing that the paper should publish any submission it receives. But as Tarleton says, "We're not doing the paper to boost the ego of our writers. It's for our readers-- to give them the best possible information within our limited ability and resources."

Some (often anonymous) folks tend to accuse independent journalists of having "sold out" if we publish in corporate outlets, make money as journalists, take ads in our publications, or demand high quality or even rewrites of submissions. But that means media in which talent and skill are punished, mediocrity rules, and we all hold hands and congratulate each other for "telling it like it is," even when few can understand the telling. Is that really the kind of media we want?

This sort of self-congratulatory, self-important attitude alienates almost everyone outside of the proverbial "activist ghetto," (and plenty of us inside it, too). It manifests itself not only in the style and phrasing of reporters' posts, but also in the very nature of what gets reported on IMCs. Direct actions make up an overwhelming amount of the content, sometimes to the exclusion of almost everything else. But if most of us think of Indymedia as being useful only for mass actions--or worse, our own private way of getting updates on what our friends are doing halfway around the planet--it may never grow to be much more than that.

Some Indymedia sites have proven to be valuable community resources way beyond the activist scene, simply by being in the right place at the right time. According to Joshua Breitbart of Global Indymedia, "What we saw in Argentina in 2002 and New York after September 11 was that people decided to make Indymedia a community possession. When these unplanned conflicts came to the community, the IMC was ready and able to contain a huge increase in activity in a way that most organizations can't. What do you do when 50 people show up at your office and want something to do? In New York we gave them newspapers to distribute. What do you do when your whole government melts and you have to find your own ways of making decisions about city services and having meetings? Well, an open publishing newswire like Argentina's IMC comes in pretty handy." In such instances, Indymedia became a community service almost as essential as trash collection, sewage treatment, and medical services. People depended on it during crises, and used it effectively as an organizing tool and information source. But we shouldn't have to wait for an act of terrorism or a government meltdown to spur us into action. We all, at least in the US, have access to that same resource--and yet we vastly under-utilize it.

The blame for this is diffuse--I am complicit by not volunteering with IMCs over longer periods of time, by getting frustrated and walking away from disagreements rather than sticking it out and working toward resolutions, and by not publishing my work on the websites all that often. The blame also lies on all of us who have gotten sick of Indymedia and just stopped using it rather than trying to change it, or, for those of us who are less patient, starting something new.

"Indymedia's biggest problem is that it is unique," says Breitbart. "People want it to solve every problem, to be all things to all people, and it just can't do everything. Some of the practices and tools that we've developed can be taken out and put into other struggles and communities where they can gain new relevance--be experimented on in new ways. We should be thinking about how to make it no longer unique, so it's not so valuable, because we have other independent media available."

I want to challenge independent media makers of all sorts, from the folks who volunteer most of their free time to keep the Indymedia sites and collectives up and running, to the people posting angry 3:00 am rants against union organizers and engaging in endless flame wars. I hope to provoke people to live up to another IMC slogan: "Make media, make trouble." I want to see our work become more accountable, better networked, more effective, and ultimately, more threatening. The best journalists are the ones who provoke, who pose a real threat to the status quo. But by tolerating low standards, forgetting our audience, and getting fetishistically bogged down in process and ideology, we succeed only in making trouble for ourselves.

Writer's note: My research was limited to IMC sites whose dominant languages are English, Spanish, Portuguese, or French. This included sites in Europe and the Americas as well as in Manila, India, Palestine, and South Africa.

*****

Exemplary IMCs, in no particular order, that make me proud to be an occasional Indymedia reporter:

Bolivia: Many collective members are involved in the day-to-day struggles of the region and have earned the trust of social movements. They broadcast a weekly radio news program in association with community-run Radio Wayna Tambo in El Alto, and provided all-day live coverage of last year's national referendum on natural gas, with around 15 reporters calling in with updates and interviews from 7 cities across the country. They also host video screenings. I went to one that was attended by about 80 people, 95 percent of whom were indigenous Aymara. Before the screening, the IMC organizers poured several pounds of coca leaf on a table--much appreciated by the audience. In addition, they are working to get donations of computers from the United States, not for their own use, but in a true act of solidarity, to give to an Aymara community on the Altiplano that requested them. http://bolivia.indymedia.org

India: An interesting site, though not frequently updated, and with a fairly low level of participation. Certainly, internet access is a luxury on the subcontinent, and only 60 percent of the over-15 population is literate. Content is almost exclusively in English, also a luxury. So though I don't think that the site accurately represents what's happening in India and who is making it happen (a near-impossible feat for any one site to do), it still has good writing, generally constructive engagement in comments sections, and information I would be hard pressed to find elsewhere. http://india.indymedia.org

Urbana-Champaign: After buying a downtown post office and transforming it into a community center, organizing successfully to prevent the local police from buying tasers, and playing an instrumental role in voting out a corrupt mayor, it's exciting to imagine what the folks at this IMC might do next. Well, actually, next up they are helping launch a community radio station that should be broadcasting in June. Their website covers local and global issues, and often features people signing what seem to be their real names to their work. Overall, they are truly embedded in their community, and provide valuable resources in terms of trainings, open debate, and lots of media. http://www. ucimc.org

Global: An excellent overview of the world's Indymedia, this site is incredibly useful, perhaps in large part because there is no open publishing--all posts are selected by editors. The editorial collective is accessible and responsive to stories pitched to them, and they are in the process of refining this process to make it even easier. With both Spanish- and English-language features teams, and with the birth of US Indymedia siphoning off a lot of US-dominant traffic, this site has truly gone global. http://www.indymedia.org

North Texas: With broad relevance to a diverse population, the site has everything a good community paper should have--news, book reviews, opinion pieces. The quality of writing is consistently high but not academic, using accessible language without lingo or mysterious acronyms. Coverage is primarily of local events, with a smattering of regional, national, and international items. It also serves as a message board, with announcements about such things as community garden plots available and biodiesel fuel for sale. http://www.ntimc.org

San Francisco Bay Area: With a carefully edited website laden with news, Enemy Combatant Radio streaming, and the year-old monthly newspaper Fault Lines, the Indybay IMC is one of the best. The site is well organized, easy to navigate, and provides broad coverage of issues. Many collective members are involved in a slew of local struggles, and it shows. http://www.indybay.org

NYC: Publishes The Indypendent, a biweekly newspaper with a circulation between 12,000 and 15,000. Its editors are highly skilled and work closely with writers. Their war coverage has been some of the best in the country, scooping several stories that even daily papers with high-salaried staffs missed. The website receives similarly attentive editing. http://nyc.indymedia.org

Ecuador: Covers a broad range of local, national, and international news, with minimal reprinting of corporate articles and very little spam or diatribe. Frequently updated and carrying excellent coverage and discussion of major issues, such as the recent ousting of President Gutierrez and the rise of neighborhood assemblies. http://ecuador.indymedia.org

Manila: Very well-written articles predominate on this site, and people actually sign their names to their work! Lots of radical analysis and less focus on protests is a welcome change. http://manila.indymedia.org

UK: With a weekly radio program on a community arts station in London, an erratically published newspaper, the Offline, and frequent video screenings, the UK (that stands for United Kollektives, by the way) team is on the case. Web stories range from action coverage to analysis to announcements and updates, with thorough coverage of national issues, and a broad smattering of international news. This site often features the lovely convention of an independently written article followed by links to corporate media coverage of the same topic, for folks wanting contrast, more info, or confirmation of facts and data. I wish others would do this more. They also encourage people to correct mistakes in the comments section, and, if notified, the editors will post the correction in the original article when appropriate. The UK site has also been, since its inception, the place to go for resources on longer term organizing of mass actions, whether they be local May Day protests, international days of action in other countries, or the upcoming G8 summit in Scotland. The writing is excellent, even on the newswire. Though its vigorous hiding of articles not meeting their editorial guidelines has been controversial in some circles, could it be that having the newswire tightly edited may push people to do better work in order to get published? I find the UK IMC site to be consistently one of the best. Though I do wish it weren't pink. http ://http://www.indymedia.org.uk

Argentina: In Buenos Aires, Indymedia set up shop for a while in a squatted building-formerly a bank and now a community center opened by the Cid Campeador neighborhood assembly. The association with the political birth of the squat has meant that participation among the unemployed, as well as the neighborhood, is high, although the physical site has shut down. Since the financial collapse in late 2001, participation on the website has come from a broad sector of the population, who have used it in their efforts to govern their own communities. http://argentina.indymedia.org

Brazil: One of the few Indymedias to do proactive investigative reporting, it's truly a political force in the country, to which municipal and state governments must occasionally respond. The center column is translated into three other languages (including, incredibly, Esperanto). They have a broad network of reporters, translators, techies, and radio stations spread across the enormous country. http://brazil.indymedia.org

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/23741/

A fundamental problem is that most IMCs in the ``Western'' world have been captured by unrepresentative anarchist sects that run them like the Spartacist League would. They push their own causes and narrow view of world rather than adopting a broad anti-capitalist, pro-left unity perspective.

However, many Third World IMCs have avoided this. South Africa's IMC is an example that all should follow. The religious application of ``open publishing'' that allows right-wing, anti-Semitic and inter-left sectarianism to dominate is what is killing IMCs.

"The religious application of ``open publishing'' that allows right-wing, anti-Semitic and inter-left sectarianism to dominate is what is killing IMCs."

Yes, freedom of speech hurts sometimes doesn't it!

Neddy no brains continues to peddle his ideological commodity of outmoded and contra-revolutionary "left-unity", as if there was anything to unite but various approaches to rationalising capitalism (eg: social democracy; workers states and syndicalist confederations).

Dear Jennifer Whitney,

Self-publishing is what contributors want to report not what other people like you want them to report. Geeees!@

If everyone were you then we'd all be doing it your way!

So the first thing to think about is, are you the same as everyone else?

The idea is to get the word out not hate every other news source.

What if you can't get to the action on the ground?

Take these easy steps if you don't have any legs and you're in a wheel chair but you are a witness to propaganda purported by the mainstream.

You pick up the crap you don't like to read.

You re write the crap if you want to.

How?

Shhhhh this is just a rumor.

You change the heading

You reframe the guts by adding your opinions, sources, labels, links, laughs and winks. And you use your own pic, sound or movie.

You add a rumor?

Nothing wrong with that idea in the world of public opinion, especially if you make the 5pm news!

Some people write their own material I do as well but I don't write all my own material and start from scratch every single time. What for? To re invent the wheel? No need to do that every single time!

Copywrite is Freewrite they want you to think otherwise so they can sell it.

But communication is like fire, air and water it belongs to the community and cannot be bought or sold.

If everyone is talking about blue-eyed babies being culled and that is going to be a new law are you going to let them? Or just change the subject and talk about the price of eggs because you wrote it?

Don't you think the corporate media share the source?

They do, but they may pay for it with their advertising.

Notice we don't advertise?

_________________________

Mazda Australia

Zoom, Zoom Zoom, and drive safely!

___________________________

A contradiction in terms if you check out the road deaths caused by speeding drivers.

Well, sometimes we do advertise but we use reverse psychology with lunatics like Mazda Australia who have not regard whatsoever about community safety!

Meanwhile because you could not say anything relevant, and change pubic opinion at the time... because instead while they were debating the blue eyed baby law, you decided to write your own article and to talk about eggs they pass the law and then they come to take your baby away.

Don't Cry!

Corporations have lots of ants on the ground that get paid lots of money to provide the source. We don't! We have to get material from any source and see if it meets our eye. That is where our democratic style comes in.

If the article was wrong or weren't fair then we hit the ping-pong ball back and say no this is what we think.

We may ask more questions, we may be more provocative, we may sing or cry, or even have more mercy than the original source. But sometimes the source is very similar to our own and we feel that we don't need to change it because it's good.

It may also be that because the subject is out of our qualified league then we cannot add or subtract anything but it is still history and history in my opinion has to be recorded for the public record on any news service you care to think about.

Not just that but that is how you raise comments about subjects and get more public opinion, in the time frame of the event that is happening not after it happened!

A journalist in my opinion needs to start with the issue and change public opinion that is, if you don't have an issue of your own today but still want a daily news service, but you have an issue of your own tomorrow.

Think about it!

I like to write when I have something to say not when I don't because that is when I don't write a good story because the story was just written for the sake of it and not because I had an issue with a subject that I'd like to share.

Tell the truth and shame the devil.

Get the word out any way you can!

Belittle propaganda!

If you wrote your own article and chose your own subject each and every time then publishing in my opinion would be boring.

On my own website check it out.

http://www.geocities.com/publik15/feature

Many writers make a good world and no corporations are specified on my site. Some are my own and lots are from my mentors. Some pictures are my own and some I make myself. I also play the music I like when I think that it fits in. But I don't start my own band? Neither do I buy a picture studio to make a film, or advertise for Mazda Australia so I can employ people to be at scene of the accident or demonstation or whatever.

In music they call it improvisation 'make do with what you have got'.

Sometimes I add lyrics to my story and even other stories from other sources to my lyrics? What about that! See there are no rules unless, like you, you wish to make them! Like someone said it was your birthday once a year? No it's not, it is actually your birthday every day, they lied to you because they wanted you to go to work and pay tax!

If the story is from a corporate or community source and they write a good article that I agree with then I will report it and that is good enough for the history and me.

As long as I agree with the article otherwise I will change the article and then I will post it using the writers name as a news source and any additional news source.

I just think you're to into yourself.

Take a step back and have some regard for all the hard effort that belongs to the community and Indymedia.

How many people died while you complained?

Lead by example and show us the way, don't whinge, bitch, complain or judge other contributors.

This is only my opinon about your complaint. You don't have to believe it!

Really the rant about explains it all. (How many times do we to we have to say the rant above…)

Really the 'news' wire should be about news/reports/features/investigations anything else can go or be placed on a forum inside Indymedia.

Why not have a IMC reader/contributor direct democratic ballot on a forum and newswire editing?

DON'T GO THERE!
http://www [dot] lipmagazine.org/

Many more articles like this one at Lip Magazine [I refuse to link it properly] for the curious space cadets such as:

What's the Matter With White Folks?
Racial Privilege, Electoral Politics and the Limits of Class Populism" by Tim Wise

AND...

Addicted to Waste:
Harm Reduction, Disposability & The Myth of Activist Purity
Brian Awehali interviews environmental activist
Julia Butterfly Hill

NOT TO MENTION...

The Revolution Will Not Be Funded
Nonprofit organizations that began as radical grassroots associations of individuals are becoming corporations that largely copy the mainstream economy. They are professional, but not educated on the ground about the actual issues; organized, but not effective; compliant with tax laws, but not responsive or accountable to community needs. | by Andrea del Moral

...AND, I KID YOU NOT

ACTIVISTISM
Left Anti-Intellectualism and Its Discontents
The young troublemakers of today do have an ideology and it is as deeply felt and intellectually totalizing as any of the great belief systems of yore. The cadres who populate those endless meetings, who bang the drum, who lead the "trainings" and paint the puppets, do indeed have a creed. They are activistists. | by Liza Featherstone, Doug Henwood and Christian Parenti

And so if that is not enough for Lip READERS to DIGEST
you can always "Browse the FEATURES page for even more informed revolt."

INFORMED REVOLT?

How about this for informed revolt

this is a trigger...

...and this is massers head.

No other information necessary.

Do you ever see a full page spread in the media giant's news about how bad they perform?

Then why is the loser at top article so critical of her/our news service?

People also have to learn and this stuff is trial and error as well.

There is no such thing as perfect because perfection is a fallacy.

Get the word and do your best including all you learners!

Don't be put off by trolls with high expectations.

The object my friends is to get the word out! The rest comes last..

See:

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/07/1717734_comment.php#1717740

In answer to just wondering who asked should Indy discuss Jennifer Whitney complaints.

Hi just wondering, why did they hide this comment on sf.indymedia?

Just don't keep wondering how to publish it is usually explained on every Indy site. What's your problem? If people want to run full page spreads on their communities news service about how stupid they are go ahead, I'm not stopping you, but I am not taking up your offer either.

When I make a mistake the first question that pops up into my head is, did I do my best? I don't run a full-page article in public highlighting my errors.

The older you get the more learners there are in the world, so you have to tolerate the learners and let them progress, at their own pace.

Don't take for granted what you know they should or do know!

Lead them by example and show them the way instead of judging them.

Don't tell them what they should or should not do or how to do it unless they ask you for advice or it is already written and explained on your site.

If you have a problem, explain your problem to them, then decide who owns the problem and then ask the person causing the problem if they can help you solve the problem.

Do you get the picture?

Example

"I don't like it when you do this or that because that means I have to compensate and work hard to correct it and make up for it, as I am the editor or the reader.

Do you think you can help me with the problem?

Why do you have a problem with Jews perhaps I can help you?

Why do you have a problem with Arabs perhaps I can help you?

Is there any way you can tone down your 'Baggag' or not be so 'racixt'

Do you have to swear?

Can you use the spellchecker on your next article if you don't know I can show you how it works?

That's it!

Not why don't you get your act together, you're not good enough, you're letting us down, and why don't you look at better sites why don't you write what I want to read

Perhaps high expectations and blanket complaints like the article above don't focus on those people who could learn more but instead just offend those who work hard and get lots of things right.

More: This puts people off, that is anti-toilet this is pro-nazi for christ sake what is an editor for? And what is a comment section at the bottom of the page for?

Let everything do what it naturally does so that its nature will be satisfied!

If you don't like what you read, can't read it, it is wrongly spelt, not presented well etc, then ask the writer how they can help you with their presentation next time or invite them to learn more on the comment section of their own article.

You'd be surprised if you asked someone to help you with their presentation and they thought of a way just how 'obligated they would then be at looking better when they publish.

If it is offensive hide it! But don't ask people to contribute and then participate after you have hidden their contributions because you don't like what they wrote or how it was presented, accept that if you feel libel or obligated to remove the material then that is perhaps a risk you don't want to take according to the law.

People only learn from making mistakes. Feedback is how you get them to acknowledge those mistakes.

Judging people is offensive; telling the whole world how stupid you are isn't so smart if you want to look good!

Now I'm wondering why this was so hard for SF Indymedia?

It SF-IMC, we believe our mission to be to inform our readers, not cater to the egos of our writers. This is journalism, not a creative writing class. If you want to publish disinformation, enemy propaganda, gibberish, flame wars and spam, you are free to do it somewhere else. If you want what you publish on SF-IMC to stay up, let alone be featured, publish the truth, state it clearly, and eschew enemy propaganda, gibberish, flame wars, spam and capslock. You do that. We'll supply the server space, bandwidth and site maintenance. That's our social contract. If you want help, say so. If you want to learn how to research and write a cogent story, we will be more than glad to inform you. If you want us to spend our time, money, energy, talent and skills to provide you with a soapbox, speak for Global Justice. Everyone else can supply their *own* soapbox.

You exist. You have opinions. You have internet access. You have a right to be heard. You do *not* have a right to heard at the expense of Indymedia's honor and credibility. Speech is free. Bandwidth is not. If you want to publish disinformation, enemy propaganda, gibberish, flame wars and spam, pay your own d*mn way, and stop freeloading off the Global Justice Movement. Our time, money, energy, talent and skills are at the disposal of Global Justice activists, their friends, their allies and their potential friends and allies. They are not at the disposal of parasites.

Another world is possible. Parasites have no place in it. When you freeload the labor of others, you are no better than the bosses who suck on our necks 9 to 5. Labor belongs to those who perform it, not to freeloading parasites.

Which reminds me, click here:

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/07/1717610.php

The deeply mentally disturbed pederast, the chief pathological liar of the IMC network, never fails to amuse.

It has zero credibility.

http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2005/06/19060_comment.php

http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2004/05/14010_comment.php

http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2005/04/14975_comment.php#15420

"publish the truth, state it clearly, and eschew enemy propaganda, gibberish, flame wars, spam and capslock. You do that. We'll supply the server space, bandwidth and site maintenance."

Please explain?

All Hidden Comments can be found at
by Gregory Saturday, Jul. 30, 2005 at 5:07 AM
gkable@hotmail.com

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2005/07/93994_comment.php#94003
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2005/07/93994_comment.php#94053
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2005/07/93994_comment.php#94024

Every Best Wish

I lost my comment in SF Indymedia thank God for democrazy!

add your comments?

Why would you wast you time on SF Indy?

I lost my comments on SF Indy, just take a walk just a little walk down by the banks of SF Indy.....?

All comments were made in relation to the above article. So SF Indy does not want anyone to make a comment about that article because SF Indy and Jennifer Whitney believe they are right and everyone else can go to hell.

What kind of a news service is that? Fox, NEWS LIMITED!

From the News-wire
by Sam Saturday, Jul. 30, 2005 at 6:40 PM

Don't Give Me No Lip, "What's wrong with Mimicking Corporate Media"

by salaud 2005-07-31 3:30 AM +0800
-- A response to Jennifer Whitney's article on indymedia, which can be found here

The spirit of critique and wanting to help move indymedia forward is something I really appreciate. However, Jennifer Whitney's article, "The Good, The Bad, & (sic) The Ugly: "What's the Matter with Indymedia?" is one part critique, and two parts personal axe grinding, three parts "Ra! Ra! UC, NYC, 501-c(3) IMC" . Beyond the fact that the article is so deliberately misleading in many ways, it should be critiqued on the facts and arguments that it proposes about editorial policy and the mission of indymedia. To its credit, this article raises some of the right types of questions about indymedia's effectiveness and methods, but to its detriment, gives all the wrong answers. Rather, it gives short sighted answers or all the same 'ol answers.

Don't Give Me No Lip, "What's wrong with Mimicking Corporate Media"
-- A response to Jennifer Whitney's article on indymedia, which can be found here

More: perth.indymedia.org/index.php?action=newswire&parentview=12014

add your comments

Putting the criticisms of IMC to one side, I read the piece on activistism and thought it was actually pretty good: the authors were keen to make the point that a lot of the time activists are keen to see action, but don't havea good idea of how their actions will play into a broader campaign, or why one action is to be preferred to another.

The celebration of action divorced of an explanation and argument as to why that action is desirable, divorced of an understanding of how our actions serve to make another world, not just possible, but plausible, is to celebrate the deed, the deed!

The authors argue that theory and action need one another, and whilst it is an obvious point, I myself have often seen, and been guilty of, one of the two without the other.

"if you want to publish disinformation, enemy propaganda, gibberish, flame wars and spam, pay your own d*mn way, and stop freeloading off the Global Justice Movement. Our time, money, energy, talent and skills are at the disposal of Global Justice activists, their friends, their allies and their potential friends and allies. They are not at the disposal of parasites."

who exactly decides the above statement is true or not regarding an piece of writing???

DO you think the audience is stupid enough NOT to see through propaganda??

what makes you different from CNN or FOX news if you edit even 10%???

Welcome to the interview: either you have FREEDOM of SPEECH for ALL, or NOTHING for ALL....

take your pill, but dont get on your soap box for an "intellectual wank"

Welcome to the INTERNET: either you have FREEDOM of SPEECH for ALL, or NOTHING for ALL....

an example of the "indepedence" of IM can be seen on a post that was deleted on Melbourne IM and replaced with this

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2005/07/94051.php

the other post was too hot for these "women" regarding reproductive rights, so they got the morons at IMC to delete and repost crap in its stead

NO THANKS.....post everything and let the intelligence NOR Not of the audience to decide....

the Internet with its audience will sort the chaff fromt he wheat....

IMC should not interfere

just get a free version of invision power board 1.31 and use that instead of the crap IMC is using now

version 1.31 is very good and free; and u might be able to use the trial version 2 if u can find it...

google it....

1. invision power board
2. wordpress is also good and free
3. Xaraya
3. Mambo

ALL FREE OPEN SOURCE CMS.....all powerful and skinnable...

re: Activistism
by stupid dumb activist Monday August 01, 2005 at 08:37 AM

FC are you serious?
That article about Activistism is a crock. The whole Lip Magazine site looks like it's infested with spooks.

No more than Indymedia is, stupid dumb activist. No more than Indymedia.

A HA HA HA HAAAH

Maybe you should consider the structure of the website and the message you are trying to convey. If you want to be an independent conveyor of the truth, maybe you could take down the titles in the features section which point to anti-nuclear and anti-corporate stories. Are all corporations evil? Do most people know what entitles a corporation? Why are all things nuclear to be protested against? There should be clearly defined news pices an opinion pieces. Is truth not independent of opinion or context.

I think any weaknesses Indymedia might have are also it's strengths.

Don't change it.
It's organic.
Let it grow.

We must learn bake our own potatoe
and I too, can spell that any way I want, Danny Boy.

See:

http://www.sfimc.net/news/2002/11/1546540_comment.php#1693585

What makes you different from the NSDAP, the KKK, Interahamwe or the State of Israel, if you publish their racist propaganda?

Do you think a KKK message would not be slapped down by the internet audience for what it is....

secondly, we dont get complacent about freedom of speech.

thirdly, if the KKK message is relevant then it should be heard, if its not relevant then it will be good education for kids about propaganda and false ideology.

You would not know how good something is until u know how bad it can really be as a reference point

You don't see pro-nuclear or pro-corporate stories on Indymedia because those kinds of articles are just not published in any kind of forum open to comments.

Go ahead and write one though, because a debate is better than silence.

Sometimes I wish it was all just lefty propaganda.
http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2005/06/93016.php

you means write a story on how wetern pharmaceutical companies trialed unethically vaccines of either live/part virus on unsuspecting Africans and unleashed HIV VIRUS into the wild???

If my two bobs worth, means anything? I honestly believe that indymedia needs too hold the ideals of investigating the unreported elements of journalism. It is my belief that there could be more of emphisis on the how and not just on the why and when! For this reason this article needs to be viewed. Cause i believe that not enough talented and emerging journalist use this forum because of this reason!!!!!

I think not always the truth will out...

[re-post from UK-IMC]

Jeepers Creepers | 03.08.2005 02:02

First they came for the Muslims and I did not speak out because I was not a Muslim…

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out...

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aside from CCTV images of men on buses and at stations, which could easily be faked, there is scant evidence that the London bombers are guilty of these crimes and in the interests of National Security; the Intelligence Services need not disclose it anyway.

The so-called ‘suicide-bombers’ of 9-11 in New York, 11-3 in Madrid and 7-7 in Britain are dead, so none can be tried, but it is unlikely that the immigrants accused of the failed 21-7 attacks in London will be granted a fair trial by a jury or their peers either.

According to the “law” the twenty or more people who have been detained under the Terrorism Act in the United Kingdom can remain in custody indefinitely, without ever being charged. In effect, they have ‘disappeared’ and can be denied justice.

The public do not even know who most of them are, they have not been named. They could be and probably are, totally innocent; therefore we are complicit in this state terror by the absence of any protestations. Today, it is Muslims, tomorrow it could be you.

Click here:

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/07/1717734_comment.php#1717983

naive analysis
by take a stand for Global justice Thursday August 04, 2005 at 03:59 AM

>Do you think a KKK message would not be slapped down by the internet audience for what it is....

Absolutely not. In real life, groups like the KKK use the internet very effectively as an organizing and recruitment tool. They are being disturbingly successful. We need organizations like Indymedia to counteract them, not to help them out.

>secondly, we dont get complacent about freedom of speech.

Speech is free. Bandwidth is not. We have neither a legal nor a moral obligation to pay for our enemies' soapbox. Au contrair, it is deeply and fundamentally immoral, as well as ultimately self defeating, to distribute enemy propaganda.

>thirdly, if the KKK message is relevant then it should be heard,

If you even consider the KKK message to be relevant, then you don't belong in Indymedia. You belong in the KKK. Indymedia is a voice of the Global Justice Movement, not of racists. Redeem Indymedia's honor and credibility. Throw the racists out.

It's a big internet. There's room for them, too. But not on Indymedia. Let them pay for their own damn bandwidth. Indymedia stands for Global Justice, not the machinations and depredations of its enemies.

Throw the racists out.

Overall I think the above is an excellent article by Jennifer. The other articles I surveyed in Lip magazine (although i haven't seen it for years) are again, useful, thought - provoking radical critiques of many common assumptions within radical left movements.

"The Revolution with not be Funded" article is an excelllent critique of the US Non-Profit Sector - disempowering and de-radicalising grassroots movements - which is represented in Australia by the http://www.ourcommunity.com rollercoaster.

I think that this 'What Wrong with Indymedia" article stands in the rare tradition of thoughtful radical critiques of libertarian projects.

A book "What a Way to Run a Railroad: An Analyis of Radical Failure" was published by Comedia Publishing Group in 1985 which was designed to help identify and define factors contributing to the collapse or failure of so many bold radical ventures such as publishing colectives, book - shops, food co-ops, anarchist libraries, cinemas, bike co-ops, unions, education and social centres, news services and community newspapers throughout the UK in the 70's and 80's. It does this, like Jennifer's article, without apportioning blame or making personal accusations but with an incredible honest, detailed study based on personal experiences and research. Well worth a read if you can find it!

Constructive, empowering, community-controlled alternative structures such as Indymedia are vital and I believe that constructive critiques like Jennifer's are imperitive to improve and grow Indymedia. It has been inspiring to finally read a thorough and well written piece that offers and genuine critique. Bring on more of it!

http://www.adbusters.org/home/
The website is good but the magazine is better and on news stands in Australia on 100% recycled paper. The current issue is all about encouraging kids to invent their own education, media, even a whole different economic system.

This is not an ad for adbusters - that would just be wrong! As I hope this whole discussion is also not some kind of viral marketing scam.

ie: brief - targeting the digital consumer; boosting growth and dominating the anti-capitalism consumer market share. It's a growing sector - look at our invaluable research...

too cynical?

AlterNet is so far from Indymedia, I don't know why the article is here.
But since it is, thanks for the whine Jennifer.
I'm sure it will raise your cred in the corp world.
But, like you point out, you didn't do that much - you could have fought harder, given more time - you wimped out. Now you want to whine.
Okay, we heard you. We'll call your Mommy and tell her you had a nightmare and don't want to be a part of the sleep over.
Go set out on the porch and wait because people are trying to do some real work here.

https://www3.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/319827.html

(snip)

To quote 'nessie'

"Are IMCistas not willing to rise up and take Indymedia back from the racists, the homophobes, the misogynists, the warmongers, the profiteers and the apologists for exploitation and ecocide? If not, then how dare you, with a straight face, call yourself activists for Global Justice? If you are not willing to fight for the honor and integrity of the Indymedia network, you are no Global Justice activists. You are frauds and shams. Get over it. Clean up your acts and make IMC a threat again."

(snip)

There are some really worthwhile points here. I hope the Melbourne Indymedia collective will look into them. Indymedia just isn't the voice/force it could/should be, two big reasons for this being the bickering and other crap that the open publishing policy permits, and the general lack of thoughtful and thorough journalism.

I, and I'm sure stacks of others, appreciate Indymedia's intent, and recognise it as a significant alternative to mainstream media, but treat it more as a press release service and discussion group for kind of insular (and at times, bitter) activists rather than a serious source of news.

Why not have a general newswire, separate from a moderated or even edited discussion area? More reporters from the Indymedia team writing stuff up? (The front page is great.)

And there's nothing wrong with being a bit authoritative sometimes and deleting inflammatory posts and aimless bickering. There are quite literally hundreds of thousands of other sites on the net which allow that. Just as you have objectives you have to have boundaries.