The IMC censorship debate rages on
Thomas J | 13.08.2002 20:31
There is a major debate amongst IMC-UK users on what should and should not be on the UK IndyMedia newswire.
There is a current debate over what should and should not be hidden from the IMC-UK newswire. There is a current editorial policy that removes posts for the following reasons:
Discrimination: posts intending to oppress - using language, imagery, or other forms of communication which promote racism, fascism, xenophobia, sexism, or any other form of discrimination.
Advertising: posts which are personally or product promotional in nature.
Infactual: posts which are obviously infactual or misleading.
Repeated posting: if contribution is reposted or text that was originally a comment was posted as a report
It's the reasons of 'discrimination' and 'infactual' that tend to be the most controversial. Some defination on the term 'discrimatory' is needed, cause practically all articles discrimate against one group or another, be it capitalists, fascists, Zionists, religous fundimentalists, and so on.
How much should be allowed before someone says "Enough"? Some have argued in the past that the IMC newswire should be left uncensored since censorship would lead to a politcal bias and it would cease to be "independent media". Other argue that there is no place on Indymedia for hateful views such as fascism, neo-Nazism, racism, etc.
Another problem is people who have started to spam the Indymedia for their own dubious motives, such as Jean's "Heinzreport" postings, which have annoyed many. Another problem area is what to do with conspiriacy theories, since many such theories have turned out to be true in the past, such as the US presidential election, however, anyone can make a conspiriacy theory on anything, without a grain of fact.
What's to be done? Many people have come out with their own views on this issue many times, myself included, however the current problem has not been solved, and a open debate is needed on this sensitive topic. Many articles have been hidden in the past because people found them offensive, and the authors cried foul. A recent example was hidden after three reposts, and when I e-mailed the person (I was not the author of the article) regarding why the article was removed, the reply was "maybe it shoudn't be removed", so even amongst the editorial team there is a debate over what should and should not be on the newswire.
Discrimination: posts intending to oppress - using language, imagery, or other forms of communication which promote racism, fascism, xenophobia, sexism, or any other form of discrimination.
Advertising: posts which are personally or product promotional in nature.
Infactual: posts which are obviously infactual or misleading.
Repeated posting: if contribution is reposted or text that was originally a comment was posted as a report
It's the reasons of 'discrimination' and 'infactual' that tend to be the most controversial. Some defination on the term 'discrimatory' is needed, cause practically all articles discrimate against one group or another, be it capitalists, fascists, Zionists, religous fundimentalists, and so on.
How much should be allowed before someone says "Enough"? Some have argued in the past that the IMC newswire should be left uncensored since censorship would lead to a politcal bias and it would cease to be "independent media". Other argue that there is no place on Indymedia for hateful views such as fascism, neo-Nazism, racism, etc.
Another problem is people who have started to spam the Indymedia for their own dubious motives, such as Jean's "Heinzreport" postings, which have annoyed many. Another problem area is what to do with conspiriacy theories, since many such theories have turned out to be true in the past, such as the US presidential election, however, anyone can make a conspiriacy theory on anything, without a grain of fact.
What's to be done? Many people have come out with their own views on this issue many times, myself included, however the current problem has not been solved, and a open debate is needed on this sensitive topic. Many articles have been hidden in the past because people found them offensive, and the authors cried foul. A recent example was hidden after three reposts, and when I e-mailed the person (I was not the author of the article) regarding why the article was removed, the reply was "maybe it shoudn't be removed", so even amongst the editorial team there is a debate over what should and should not be on the newswire.
Thomas J
Comments
Hide the following 19 comments
Some ideas..
13.08.2002 22:24
A suggestion I liked was to put articles that were considered offensive in a different section. I think this is a good idea, as then people can be warned that they might be upset/angered by articles within. 'Offensive' means such different things to different people that I can't see how an editorial group can ever keep everyone happy.
Also, articles that are not news, or are promotional for consumer products or political parties etc. could be put in separate sections, with links to them, in the same way.
This way nothing is deleted, but irrelevant articles don't clog up the main pages of the website.
Cake
curiously some things stay online
13.08.2002 22:56
dh
Don't be fooled
14.08.2002 01:18
Illuminatty Dread
Thought policeman? I don't think so
14.08.2002 02:26
"Illumatty dread": What's this about me "determining from his own shallow mind what's acceptable"? RU saying that I cannot have my opinion on what should be on Indymedia? Is everyone who posts their opinion on what they want on here just a thought policeman, as you so inaccuratly describe me?
The 'debate' is that some of the regular IMC posters argure that certain offensive views, such as those of fascists, to be removed from the newswire, whilst other argue that this equates to fascism in itself. Anyway, the current situation isn't very clear on what can be on the Indymedia, and all this post intended to do was generate debate and ideas. Sorry if that offends anyone, but last I looked, it was a free country, right?
Thomas J
Tricky one...
14.08.2002 04:34
A fact that I may have thought whacko five years ago I may consider perfectly reasonable today and this would probably be, in no small part, due to the type of input I have selected for myself over that time. It's not a perfect world(!) and, whilst this is surely a point worthy of debate, we should be a little tolerant of editorial efforts to streamline and filter to some extent. It takes time to trawl through endless crap posts and compromises are inevitable. I'm just glad I am not making the decisions!
paul
e-mail:
paul@pinny.eurobell.co.uk
Thomas J you get very boring...
14.08.2002 08:56
The only people who argue that hiding fascist postings are the fascists themselves, like Mike from Essex.
And what are you talking about, IMC doesn't have a political bias?!?! IMC is a media tool for radical social change. It has no pretense of being "impartial" or "unbiased".
>Anyway, the current situation isn't very clear on what can be on the Indymedia, and all this post intended to do was generate debate and ideas. Sorry if that offends anyone, but last I looked, it was a free country, right?
No. I believe that this post is to fuel your megalomania. You keep posting and RE-posting stories on this same subject. If you want to get involved with IMC, GET INVOLVED WITH THE FUCKING EDITORIAL TEAM! If not, shut the fuck up and stop filling up the newswire with your self-indulgent bullshit.
Thank you.
rednblack
Re: hidden posting you mention
14.08.2002 09:02
That particular posting was put up by a known BNP sympathiser - if not member - and had content which clearly violated the editorial guidlines by discriminating against non-"native Britons", whatever the fuck that means.
indymedia is not a resource for the spreading of racist hate.
George's Bush
anti censorship
14.08.2002 09:04
anon
Proposed 'solution'
14.08.2002 11:53
Anything else should be removed.
There is already a facility for announcing events
but I can see that there is some justification for cross over in some cases.
Debate/discussion/rants etc simply should not be on the newswire - whatever their political slant. It is fine (great infact) that people can comment on news posts on the newswire but comment should not be tolerated as a 'root' thread in the newswire.
I sugest that introducing unmoderating debating forums as part of Indymedia would be a good way forward. News items could link to approbriate discussion threads and NO comment/opinion would be allowed in the newswire.
This should be pretty simply to impliment with the existing system.
I'd love to see the Indymedia newswires live up to potential and for it to do so we need to find a way to loose the clutter.
Stuff like control of accidental duplicate posting could be automated and that would help to reduce clutter.
Some editorial policy on what is relevent news for local/regional IMCs might be useful also.
Ben
ben
Racism
14.08.2002 13:21
Dan
It has all become clear now
14.08.2002 13:29
However, "anon" and "Cake"'s ideas of catergorising the articles are very good, since some articles on the newswire are more important to some people than others. Ben's seperate discussion board is also a good idea, since it can keep the newswire for posting news on.
Finally, Rednblack, what's your problem? I do not keep "posting and reposting" articles on the same subject, I have only posted one other on this subject recently. And what's this about this post only serving to fuel my meglalomaina? Bullshit! Even if I was that way inclined, what could I alone do on this site? Eh? It's all very well saying that I should get involved in the editorial team, but I am studying at University for a degree, and therefore am very busy. What do YOU do?
Thomas J
Homepage:
http://uk.indymedia.org/ms.php3
There is no such thing as "unbiased"
14.08.2002 14:06
i have always felt that for IMC to stick to demo reports alone is a little too narrow, one complication being that Britain has had a long history of too few, lacklustre demos which fail to get anywhere. This means the debate about the political situation needs more airing, a debate in which IMC could assist. Equally, commonsense guidelines about restricting gratuitous nonsense, facsistic rantings, and irrrelevant 'spammings' must still apply.
One mistake would be for IMC to get into the "balance" mentality, as exemplified by the BBC. For years the BBC told us they were unbiased, and we believed them, when in fact this artifice, this construction is a more subtle form of propaganda, being used very much in the Israeli issue (John Pilger writes in-depth about this)
Space-Trotskyist
Indymedia- 7 out of 10 cats preferred it
14.08.2002 15:23
I can see that it could lead to a lot of division if the categories were to be based on political angles though.
How about a newswire for coverage of actual events, a section for people to highlight worthy causes, a section for political ranting, a section for posters and illustrations etc. etc.
Just an idea. I'm sure the editors will point out that it would involve far too much work.
Pleb
Insanity of Indymedia censorship
14.08.2002 19:24
I sit here and read these post with some amusement. Mainly that stemming from the fact that certain Left wingers on Indymedia.org.uk have labelled me a fascist.
To put it quite clearly, I am Vehemently opposed to marxist, communist and general socialist political stances, and when compared to these, my political opinions are certainly more to the right. However I am certainly not a fascist and object to that 'label'.
As I've said before thou, it seems that anyone to the right on new labour is branded a nazi by the vast majority of indymedia posters.
Continuing to censor my newswire posts, nearly all of which are backed with researched FACT, just demostrates your afraid of letting people see an alternative view.
The only fascist stuff I've seen on here was a load of anti semetism from some crazy religious poster saying the jews were evil as it says so in the bible....
mike
e-mail:
mjpann@essex.ac.uk
Mike's views...
14.08.2002 20:09
As Space-Trotskyist said, there is no such thing as an unbiased source, and if people want to look at bigoted, warped views, there are other sources (including the Daily Mail) that they can use. I doubt that the majority of Indymedia users hold such views, but what do I know?
Thomas J
daily mail is warped
15.08.2002 00:04
All news media is warped to some degree by the political ideologies of the journalists and editors, thou as you are probable aware my posts are mainly from the BBC, The Times etc, and in my opinion thats less biased then most other news sources, and certainly couldnt be called 'fascist press'
mike
e-mail:
mjpann@essex.ac.uk
No but facts can be twisted
15.08.2002 00:47
I don't intened to try and dictate what can and cannot be posted on Indymedia, with all the accustions that have been aimed at me so far, but bigoted, xenophobic views that encourage predujice are not welcome here, there are sites where they are, so there is no excuse for allowing such filth on here.
Last thing, you surprise me Mike with your attacking of the Daily Mail, I'd have though a right wing Tory paper would be right up you alley! But I suppose it's too mild even for the likes of bigots like you, "Spearhead" would be more your thing...
Thomas J
Originality
15.08.2002 09:35
So, PLEASE, don't keep reposting stuff we've already read - post news that you've written or that most people may not ordinarily pick up in their daily browse through mainstream media websites. And make sure it's not simply opinion, but is actually informative and relevant to the whole aims and beliefs of Indymedia. If you don't like commies and lefties and immigrants, then maybe this isn't the place for you.
Dan
Waffle
15.08.2002 16:24
I was saying that i was using LINKS (eg URLS) to bbc and times pages when i was discussing something and needed to draw reference to the source of a fact within my comment, i wasnt reposting whole or even partial articles... which is quite clear if you actually read my postings DAN as opposed to just ranting about nothing.
Mike
e-mail:
mjpann@essex.ac.uk