I am a new reader of IndyMedia, and now think that it is essential reading. But I cannot understand the aversion here to the Grauniad or the BBC. I am not subscribing to the whole globalisation package deal, just the monetary bits. I also have to say that there is still a distinct lack of humour amongst the anarchists. However Darius' article was great and will get more new readers here.

Funny you should ask. Just last night I referred this article on to IMC Print folks and commented on its inclusion of a link to the IMC. I didn't notice the tiny Bill Hayton video icon until you mentioned a video, so I just now watched it. I couldn't agree more about the growing influence of independent media.

Also, earlier today I referred a few hundred international nurses on an email list I own to one of today's BBC video news reports, the one covering Tony Blair's attempts to privatize UK health care. Besides our interest in the topic, what was remarkable was the quality of news and analysis. We do NOT have anything like this in the US, not anymore, not for the past 10-15 years.

So in answer to your question, I think the BBC is doing a great job of at least attempting to provide balanced and intelligent news coverage.

Thanks!

Peter

The aversion to the BBC/Guardian comes from bitter experience. Sometimes the Guardian has been as directly hostile to us as the Daily Mail. Arguably this is more damaging, as you expect the Mail to talk crap about any progressive movement. One example would be the hatchet job done on Reclaim the Streets prior to Mayday. Which was doubly odd, as the only action RTS had planned for the day was running a creche. The Observer ran a bizarre 'police marksmen on standby in case anarchists bring machetes and samurai swords' story, uncritically, presumably straight from Scotland Yard.

BBC news and documentaries habitually refuse to give background to stories when it would mean revealing pertinent but embarassing information. Eg a Correspondent piece about Suharto, Indonesia and East Timor. It didn't talk about the slaughter following Suharto's take over, when at least 500,000 people were killed, the CIA providing the killers lists of suspected communists. It didn't really describe how the horror of the invasion of Timor, with a third of the population killed was carried out with direct support from Britain and the US.

The BBC/Guardian and everyone else still describes Seattle as an anticapitalist riot, when it was plainly a police riot. Any eyewitness account I've seen describes how the police attacked peaceful demonstrators with tear gas and rubber bullets. The fact that a few people then smashed some windows does not make what happened an example of dreadful anticapitalist violence.

The Guardian briefly had an AP wire story on its website from a reporter who clearly saw police agent provocateurs in action in Barcelona, yet the only story that made the paper was a news in brief slot about violence breaking out.

Who would know from the mainstream media that Iran was a parliamentary democracy before the US supported the Shah's seizure of power?

One of the best analyses of the press is Noam Chomsky/Ed herman's Manufacturing Consent, it's worth a read.

I'm not saying don't believe anything in the corporate media, just don't take everything at face value. I'd apply the same thing to independent media.

Sense of humour? Fair point sometimes, but check out Schnews.

Check out the piece about Genoa in last Sunday's Observer. There was no analysis of the issues, just scare stories about an air strike by al-Qaida and rumours from a taxi driver about a mass grave being dug in preparation! Now tell me if I am being unfair, but under usual circumsatnces would we really see the broadsheets printing the hear-say of a taxi driver! (no, he'd have to write them on Indymedia!) Hardly the credentials usually reqired to be considered an authority by the press! They talk of a "hardcore" of violent anarchists. These people are not at the "core" but most definately the periphery! "Jails have been emptied" - where are all the criminals? Presumably they'll be up the front in uniform.

This is why we give the mainstream media such a hard time. Their rhetoric is usually always against us. Where are the stories of the "hardcore" of coppers willing to shoot up protesters on Gothenburg?

I rest my case.

"Who would know from the mainstream media that Iran was a parliamentary democracy before the US supported the Shah's seizure of power?"


Could you please give some links to more information about this topic? Thanks

p.s.-I don't thing that info is false I just wanna know more about it.