Please try explaining why in your judgement the "new priciples" of IndyMedia mean that the standard rules of Journalism don't apply. Do you underastand the purpose of these rules of thumb, the W's for example? They are to get people to bother reading the article, not to immediately give up on it because it's a mispresented out of order mishmash.

Sorry, but I have to agree with her. The average article is written to a standard that would get it rejected by a middle school editor. In other words, this isn't a question about the standards of the corporate media. This is about the stuff you would have learned in any high school journalism class, writing articles for the school paper, selecting appropriate headlines, etc. etc.

IF NOBODY IS WILLING TO READ YOUR PIECE IT IS A FAILURE. If it's poorly written, you are likely not to have an audience. The problem is NOT the high price of a printing press, the cost of paper, etc. The problem is that much of the stuff written, the way it's written, if printed on paper should be printed on very soft paper that dissolves in water so that it might serve SOME useful purpose. Understand? People are even willing to pay for things they read IF its somethign that they want to read.

Maybe we need to rethink this through? Try some different experiments. Lot's of people have good, important things to say but perhaps lack the skills. Can we help them get those skills? Can we provide personal assistance? Here are some ideas.

a) Our sites could have a link to pages giving a brief introrduction to basic journalism technique. Something titled "so you want to tell your story" starting with what sorts of things about your story should appear in the first paragraph >

b) We might have human assistance available. A place where a person who wishes to post a story but realizes they don't know how to (re)write it can ask for help. I am NOT talking about editorial oversight but editorial assistance -- the person should be free to reject the suggested changes and post however they like, but the help should be available.

>

Yeah, we need something OTHER than commercially motivated lies, distractions, and misleading spectacles of the corporate mass media. Anyone who can't understand that, simply has no reason to be here. Give it up!

Indymedia is losing alot of its credibility even with its most enthusastic readers when the average article is written in a fashion that makes it either or both incredible or unreadable. There should be at least some editorial policy, or perhaps make two sections: one where everyone can rant about their conspiracy theories in a preschool fashion, and another one where meaningful discussions and articles are featured.

I must say I am proud of the label of 'Frustrated Civil Servant' (bollocks, I am a soap-dodging student!). Like Groucho, I would not want to be a member of a club which wanted me as a member.

Mike asks a really good question:

"Please try explaining why in your judgement the "new priciples" of IndyMedia mean that the standard rules of Journalism don't apply. Do you underastand the purpose of these rules of thumb, the W's for example? They are to get people to bother reading the article, not to immediately give up on it because it's a mispresented out of order mishmash. "

There are many parts to a good answer to that question. Firstly, my case is that indymedia is and should be fundamentally different from the "old principles" in that it should be a "pull" medium and not a "push" medium. This is so fundamental that we are almost speaking different languages if we don't make that a starting point. By "pull" I mean that we are not trying to push very readable, well thought out, grammatically correct, content AT a group readers, as in the "old principles". We are contrarywise trying to "pull" writings FROM writers. We are trying to make people feel like they also can be the media. Not to be the media that they already see around them, with its history and its intent, but a different media done a different way with different standards. Standards that would be more about passion, truth, and intent than the "old principles".

Here's an example that I think is illustrates the point. If a potential writer (we don't see them as just readers anymore, do we?) comes to the site who has never felt like they could be the media before sees an article that is an amazing work of great "journalism" in the classic sense they go away thinking, "I can't do that" or "that doesn't sound like me". But, if however, they see posting that communicates a truth like the one they want to communicate in the way in which they can do it, it strikes a chord. It is empowering. We all experience this. If we do not set our editorial policies up this way from this place of intent, we will chop down the sapling before it can grow.

Part of my argument in the article is that indymedia is a revolution and we must see it through. That means dealing with the transition from a closed media to an open media. This means explicitly dealing with the postings and styles of postings of people just getting started. We need to focus on engaging them. As a natural consequence of going in the direction of enabling each other and being patient with each other and trusting each other as writers with different styles and abilities and readers with the ability to comprehend that which is not spoonfed to us we will end with a product that will be so much more powerful and good for us all than our current media and its "old principles". Another way to look at this is that we must focus on the means and not the ends. The ends come about by our commitment to the means.

The second part of this is that the 'W's and lest we forget the 'H' and some other rules of thumb don't need to be thrown out. There are valid things about this style of telling. But, from the point of view that I am arguing, these things are secondary. We shouldn't believe that this is the only way or the best way. It amounts to looking down our noses (I'm in the club of people who did a lot of journalism classes) at the oral or written traditions of other cultures. This analogy actually works well when you consider that we are trying to create an new media, not just for the educated few, but for those who are not educated in the same way. You might also analogize this to whether you like rap music or rock'n'roll. People have different ways of telling, it is only a matter of taste.

There are many other parts. I'll throw some quick ones here. Language and power. History of journalism and the MEN that created it vs. the telling styles of WOMEN. History of journalism and the WHITE MEN that created it vs. the telling sytles non-whites...non-white men. Indymedia gets the double whammy because we are not just trying to appreciate the writings of these "others" as passive readers, but trying to get those "others" to become writers of their own news. Perhaps the indymedia model, because of its history and the people who created it only applies to whites of a certain economic background, but because groups all over the world are using it, in many cases better than yanks, this doesn't hold.

I think that good spelling, grammar and the ability to write well-structured articles are all important attributes. However, to me, the point here is that we are all able to judge these things, and take them into account, for ourselves. The reader is their own editor, and a good reader learns to take the different factors into account when evaluating each article.

For example, a first hand account of police brutality is going to be an effective article regardless of how it's written. The intelligence, background and standard of education of the writer would be irrelevant - it's simply a unique experience and very powerful. On the other hand, an opinion article outlining some wild conspiracy is simply going to make itself sound even less credible if it's ridden with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors.

The point is that the reader not only can decide for themselves, but has to decide for themselves.

It is perfectly acceptable to start a sentence with "and" or "but". This is one of those rules invented by people who want to be pedants but aren't very good at it -- just like the rule about not splitting infinitives.

That said, I'm not too fussy about grammar and spelling. Anyone who has read any Chaucer (say) that hasn't been modernised will be used to idiosyncratic grammar and spelling. Similarly, anyone who has read any Bill Burroughs will also be used to such things as well as idiosyncratic punctuation. However, there comes a point where bad spelling, grammar and editing can make an article unreadable.

Take one example from your above article: the blending of quotes from the original article with your own article, and without the use of quotation marks, italics or indentation. A paragraph starts off quoting Whitney (but without quotation marks) and then seamlessly blends into salaud. How is the reader to know who is saying what? This makes it very difficult to read, and it may well put some people off.

The most important thing about an article is that it should be easy to read. If the reader has to carefully analyse what has been written in order to figure out what the writer probably means, then the writer has done a bad job. The way the article is written should be barely noticeable if the article is written well.

There are a lot of sloppily written articles on Indymedia, which is a shame. And (sic) I'm sure these people have something important that they want to tell others about, but unfortunately they are not getting their message across.

There was a lot in Whitney's article that I didn't agree with, and it's good that someone has taken the trouble to write a detailed rebuttal.

I didn't even need to read past this before I wanted to make a comment:

At times my article may sound self-congratulatory or self-important, but it will come from a place of defense instead of offense and most importantly is not trying to deny that it feels important or wishes to congratulate itself where warranted. Lastly, I would say it to her face.

How unnecessarily aggressive and how utterly typical. I read this article originally in Lip magazine with the original title, "Make Media, Make Real Trouble: What's Wrong (and Right) with Indymedia" and found myself agreeing with every word she said. My opinions of Indymedia are not just based on reading articles and comments but on working with Indymedia people to film and document the mass demo against the IMF and World Bank in Washington DC. I was working through Paper Tiger Television with a group of young people of colour to document their experiences of activism and their first experience of being media activists. All along the way, at IMC meetings, these young people were treated like dirt and often had their ideas dismissed outright by self-righteous Indymedia people. These were young people coming to political consciousness and identifying how welcome they felt in activist circles to decide whether they would continue their involvement.

Fortunately, they met other young people of colour and made their film about the racism and discrimination that older, white anti-capitalists showed them or else they would have probably given up altogether. Of course, when we screened this film, the rest of the Indymedia crew pretty much ignored their message and continued to congratulate themselves on how much they "kicked ass" in DC.

Indymedia and activists in general need to learn to listen to those on the edges who don't feel welcome who are criticising them and more importatlly, learn to look critically at themselves. A policy of allowing people to continually post conspiracy theories that make everyone except the government and corporations equally oppressed in society is not going to make people of colour, queers, or working class people turn to Indymedia article posters for their commentary of the world. To them, this is as bad as the mainstream media because it just as effectively ignores their experiences and oppression.

Getting out of these habits can stop Indymedia from being purposely ghettoised (just like many activists who close ranks against anyone who criticises them) and therefore missing the point of their existence which is to be a real alternative to the mainstream media that is accessible to the largest number of people. This is a far greated challenge that Indymedia faces than whether an article is constructed with perfect grammer.

Paul: Well said. That's my point exactly. I feel strongly that the spelling and grammar is irrelevant to passionate tellings of truth. You raise a really good point about the context in which spelling/grammar is used/mis-used having a detrimental or null effect. I only raised the point of spelling and grammar in my rebuttal and gave the orginal a taste of its own medicine because it had the pretense of correcting people in this way. We should, just exactly as you said, respect the reader's intelligence.

EvilEmpire said: "Take one example from your above article: the blending of quotes from the original article with your own article, and without the use of quotation marks, italics or indentation. A paragraph starts off quoting Whitney (but without quotation marks) and then seamlessly blends into salaud. How is the reader to know who is saying what? This makes it very difficult to read, and it may well put some people off. "

I have to plead innocent. All the quotes you allude to had around them originally. UK indymedia html robots stripped them. I couldn't go back and edit it. See the version on Portland HERE with the blockquoting. My apologies.

'nother yank said: "I didn't even need to read past this before I wanted to make a comment: " You didn't need to read past this, or you DIDN'T read past this? Just curious which you mean. I know it was a long article. I don't always read long articles. I just wrote a long one because I felt passionately about it.

With respect to agressiveness and typicalness you should have definietly read to at least the end of that paragraph. I felt that the original article was unnecessarily agressive and typical. I thought, that it needed a taste of its own medicine. That's why I came from that perspective occaisonally and was at least transparent about it. More than I can say for the original article with its passive agressiveness.

'another yank also said: "Indymedia and activists in general need to learn to listen to those on the edges who don't feel welcome who are criticising them and more importatlly, learn to look critically at themselves." and also said, "Getting out of these habits (conspiracy theory posts) can stop Indymedia from being purposely ghettoised (just like many activists who close ranks against anyone who criticises them) and therefore missing the point of their existence which is to be a real alternative to the mainstream media that is accessible to the largest number of people."

I agree we need to listen to those people on the edges. But, I find it insulting or rather pointless and/or dangerous to leave unrebutted the criticisms, especially those broadcast using corporate media, of someone who is in no way on the edges. Especialy, those who are so clearly just restating the status quo.

I don't like conspiracy posts either and I think they detract from the use of sites as a place to READ news. They can also sometimes be detrimental to the WRITING, if they eclipse local original reporting. But the way to be a "real alternative to the mainstream media" is not just to make what a bunch of white people write available to largest number of people of colour who can read the site without conspiracy posts. The way to be a real alternative is to create a real alternative to the WAY and the INTENT in which mainstream media operates. Mimicking their "journalism" and using their assumptions leads to no real alternative. It amounts to the difference between Democrats and Republicans in the US (sorry yank example). That is, no difference in methods, just who can carry out the same plan better. The plan with current media is to push media at people, not create writers. We need to make the ability to WRITE an article acessible to the largest number of people. The reading follows naturally.

I definitely appreciate your story about the young people. Young people, regardless of colour, have their own methods and ways of seeing and telling that are different from the world of assumptions and conventions (like "journalism") created by adults. Adults and "journalists" will ignore them because of that difference. But, I trust that, just like the new models that indymedia presents, they will one day no longer be ignored because those methods are passionate and closer to the truth.

indymedia is great

if you want edited news then you are free to take indymedia articles and edit them to your hearts content and publish them under your own newswire on a different website. indymedia should be kept for the raw material though, otherwise where would the raw material come from?

Salaud,

Have you ever seen a copy of Lip Magazine? I'm asking because I just don't see how anyone can look at it and dismiss it as corporate. Sure it has ads, but for things like food co-ops, independent publishers and feminist sex-toy shops. We seem to forget that before the internet, people had to financially support each other's ideas and writing by buying zines, journals etc. Now everyone seems to think the only thing radical enough to be worth reading comes completely free of charge. I'm assuming the author is either American or lives in America so this is as much for Indymedia UK.

In America, there is a very strong indpendent publishing world that has grown from a huge zine-publishing underground. The stregth of this is due mainly to the fact that the American media is about a billion times worse than the media in the UK, in terms of pretty much everything wrong with mainstream media. Because people rely on this so much, they turn to periodicals like Z, Bitch, Clamor, Colorlines and many more, all of which are available nationwide or through subscriptions. They take contributions from writers, usually not for any money, and rely on advertising from other like-minded folks so that they can afford to pay for each issue to be printed. This doesn't stop these magazines from having anything worthwhile to say. Aside from the last issue of Lip, I don't remember where else I've read an article about discrimination against queer youth by communities of gay men more interested in urban renewal that lgbt solidarity.

The issue that the Indymedia article came in was called the sacred cow issue, where people levied constructive criticisms at things that people don't like to take criticism for. But that's half the problem, many people who read and write for Indymedia believe they are doing something so revolutionary that they are beyond criticism. The easiest way to perpetuate this is to dismiss all of your critics as being "corporate". But Indymedia needs to remember that although they took the name of an entire field that was very much thriving in America before its existence, they are not the only people worthy of observing the world on account of them being more Indy than anyone else. Your statement at the end of your reply sort of sums it up for me.

You say of my story of the young people: "Adults and "journalists" will ignore them because of that difference. But, I trust that, just like the new models that indymedia presents, they will one day no longer be ignored because those methods are passionate and closer to the truth."

Mine was a criticism of the people at Indymedia and their treatment of youth yet somehow it's been turned around to imply that Indymedia and these young people are one in the same, equally ignored and oppressed by the forces of corporate media. It's counter-productive, and to use Whitney's word, lazy to ignore the fact that society's power structures (racism, sexism, ageism and homophobia to name a few) still exist in Indymedia and inform how people treat each other, write about each other and react to each other.

Of course, this criticism doesn't apply to everyone at Indymedia, on the Urbana-Champaign site, someone posted the article not to tear it apart, but to point out that maybe we need to take stock of these criticisms and look inward to determine how they stop Indymedia from being as effective as possible. If it takes someone criticising Indymedia from the independent, or as you say corporate, publishing world to acheive this, more power to those periodicals that present a critical, insightful view of politics. I'll continue to pay money for them.

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

This is mainly a response to 'nother yank:

Firstly, I am also/have been an idependent publisher of print media. I have never taken ad money, but I have sold that print media. I have also sold ads for four years for a school newspaper, as well as write articles and I have friends/family who still do. But, let indymedia and those other ways of doing things never mix.

I appreciate print publications like Z and others, so far as they go. They contain sometimes revolutionary critiques or articles about things that are important, which truly corporate media do not. I really appreciate little local zines that are done outside of a hierarchy. I would doubt that Z and others aren't internally using a hierarchical structure to produce the paper.

The point of my article is not dismiss Lip as corporate. I've never even seen it. Though the next sacred cow issue they do should feature my critique of them don't you think? Are some cows just too sacred? My article talks about indymedia. Indymedia has problems. Some of these problems Whitney correctly points out. However, she gave all the wrong solutions to the problems, specifically because she is viewing indymedia in the framework of corporate/old media. This is what my article is about. Indymedia certainly needs some critique, but it also needs the right answers to the critique. In her case it might have been better for her to have a written an article complaining about indymedia, but proposing no solutions, as other print media do.

Being or mimicking corporate media means to mimick their idea of journalism, their internal hierarchical structures (chief editor, publishers, section editors, writers, apprentices, ad sales, etc.), and the way they support themselves. Whether or not Lip magazine is officially incorporated or whether Z magazine is incorporated has nothing to do with whether they mimick corporate media's MEANS of producing media. It is the means that I am focusing on all through my article and in my critique of mimicking corporate media in general. The PRODUCT of Z and The NY Times are different, but how close are the means?

This is what I see as corporate mimicking of means. From one corporate media source to the next the product is different and the people they get ads from are different, but how different are they really if they do things the same? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, even if the poo smells different, it's still a duck.

I didn't mean to minipulate your example in such a way that said I didn't recognize how it applied to indymedia. I have seen exactly what you are talking about IN your example in indymedia myself. I'm not trying to sideline that critique. It's valid and real. Portland does a little better job so far as youth goes, so I don't see it everyday, but we are not perfect either.

But, what I did say holds true. Indymedia culture and youth culture share the properties of being ignored and their methods seen as being too new, green, unseasoned, not taking the realities of the world into account, et cetera. When the process or product of indymedia looks chaotic, sub ADULT standard, disorganized or dream like, people, like Whitney, stand up to criticize it and say something akin to, "it's not adult enough...make it grow up" (read: fit the adult standard...ie status quo).

Youth are a class. Just like any other class (like gender or queerness) whether or not you get treated and identified like that class lies along a continuum for youth. If indymedia shows the signs and symbols that signify youth culture it will get treated that way. ASFAR - Americans for a Society Free From Age Restrictions and NYRA - National Youth Rights Association are both good starting point resources for the current youth struggles, but by no means complete.

Check out the Editor of LiP magazines response HERE

Here's my response to his response (UK imc html robots will strip my blockquotes...sorry):

I appreciate Brian Awehali taking the time to respond. Firstly, I would like to say that I'm very pleased by Brian Awehali choosing to participate in what I feel is a very important strategic debate. I responded to his article, in some part because it attacked Portland indymedia, and I was transparent about it. He seems to be responding because I put LiP and corporate media in the same headline. Look at it this way, any buzz is good buzz, right? Wrong.

I am again going to take the road, which I think is most respectful, and I will respond to Brian Awehali's response one piece at a time.

Awehali says:

the frame of salaud's response is, in its title and argument, manipulative and just plain wrong. Nowhere in the piece does Jen argue -- and no one at LiP would argue -- that ANYONE should take ANYTHING in the "direction" of corporate media. (Whatever that hopelessly broad phrase even really means). This is a sloppy charge that sets up a false binary that gets no one anywhere. This is simply a dumb and inexact point. And salaud made it part of the title of hir response.

Of course, LiP or Whitney would not explicitly argue that we should take anything in the direction of corporate media. But, in fact, you are doing and asking, just that, perhaps not deliberately, but surely enough. I think the phrase "corporate media" is broad. But, it really does mean something. It is what indymedia is fighting against. Is it what LiP is fighting against? I will now try to be more exact about what I mean by the use of "corporate media" in my article and the very really continuum (not binary) of the MEANS of media work.

Being or mimicking corporate media means to mimick their idea of journalism, their internal hierarchical structures (chief editor, publishers, section editors, writers, apprentices, ad sales, etc.), and the way they support themselves, namely adverstisements. Whether or not Lip magazine is officially incorporated or whether Z magazine is incorporated has nothing to do with whether they mimick corporate media's MEANS of producing media. It is the means that I am focusing on all through my article and in my critique of mimicking corporate media in general. The PRODUCT of Z and The NY Times are different, but how close are the means?

This is what I see as corporate mimicking of means. From one corporate media source to the next the product is different and the people they get ads from are different, but how different are they really if they do things the same? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, even if the poo smells different, it's still a duck.

So what I am talking about is not a binary. It is a continuum along which something mimics corporate media or corporate "journalism", more specifically. You can frankly call it "vexar holligander" or whatever you want, if the MEANS are similar, even if the SCALE is different, with a little luck and enough subscriptions, it will go right to the same place as NYT or NPR.


Media isn't independent or "non-independent" because people have to pay for it. That actually has no bearing on political or intellectual "integrity" whatsoever. Having to charge for something doesn't mean its de facto "profit driven." It means it costs money to produce media. What makes it independent are the values that guide and inform it, as well as its internal structure. Making any assumptions about LiP, for example, without bothering to consider anything beyond whether we sell it or not, is just a laughable mental shortcut. (Note: Whitney was not paid anything for this piece, and our core editorial group works on an all-volunteer basis, often contributing our own scarce funds).


Media is not independent or mimicking corporate media (money media, vexar holligander, etc.) because people have to pay for it. Yes, it does cost money to produce media. No, it doesn't mean it's necessarily profit driven. However, it's not independent, if it costs money for a writer to get published, and if money that it costs to produce the media doesn't come from the writer themself. Ad money makes a publication money media, non-independent. It is dependent on something else to make things go.

Writing your own book, printing it with your earned money or with money given to you without exchange, and distributing it yourself is independent media. Which I do and hold copyrights to some material. This is not indymedia, nor should it be. Having a band, playing shows where your labor is involved, using that money to help other bands, producing your own record, distributing that record yourself and managing your own affairs is an independent label. Ad money and that which does not come from the labor of the individual or group is not independent. Distribution deals are not independent...etc, etc. Don't go crying "binary, binary", that is a mental shorcut and dismissive tactic for sure. This is also a continuum.

If you make a profit and that some of that money goes into your pocket for things other than more printing, that's profit driven. You may call it "profit ridden", if you don't see it as what is driving. But, go down that path and it will be driving, I assure you, when a publication can't get the amount of distribution that it once enjoyed. That's when one sells out. It IS a dark path. Selling out is real. Greed is real.


Expecting your audience to NOT rely on you to sort out fact from fiction is a complete abdication of your responsibilities as a journalist. When the NYT publishes bullshit about WMDs or the like, "we" rightly criticize them for it. (We also understand that THEIR mission, unlike OURS is to SERVE, not CHALLENGE power).


Indymedia is trying to put "journalists" in the sense you are describing out of business. The power relationship where a reader must rely (or be dependent on) on a single or few widely distributed writer(s) to decern the facts is what we should be trying to erase. Especially, when we create a professional class of "journalists" whose facts, because they get paid, are given more authority. That is the relationship that is created by the word "journalist" and its means. My responsibility as an indymedia enabler is different, my mission is different, I am here to serve a WRITING community of people struggling to be their own, truly independent, media and to identify and challenge the power relationships, access issuses, and assumptions created from "journalism." I rightly criticize those that still hold to "journalism", a shit stained and sinking ship and I hope that is a service.


As for spelling... well, regardless of where you fall in the language usage camp, it's hard to get around one of the best points Whitney makes in her piece, about communication and its definition. Our audience has to be kept in mind at all times, since just telling isn't communication at all, and it's certainly not effective media. And attention *should* be paid to their likelihood of being able to understand what a journalist writes.


Let me say again, if it isn't obvious, that just reading isn't communication at all. Just reading is not effective media or communication at all. Just reading is the current model of "journalism". It's disempowering. No tree falling, no one heard it.

We must keep those we serve in mind (what Awehali calls, passively, an "audience"). Keeping who we serve in mind for indymedia means creating an atmosphere that is empowering to new writers and to writers who have little voice in our society, though they be good writers. Once they have a lot of voice and means to produce their own media, indymedia's service is complete. I hope the differences in framework that I talked in my article are becoming more clear and more exact.


Spellchecking and things of such nefarious ilk are merely tools for communication. Arguing that journalists (of any type) should disregard correct spelling, or that those who advocate the use of a spellchecker are somehow "elite" is just puritanical activist navelgazing drivel. No one's saying people have to KNOW how to spell "correctly" -- but what about hitting, oh, two buttons on even freeware word processing software, and spending, maybe, 5 minutes to correct misspellings? I think any argument against this can safely be set down, with a gentle pat on the head, in the "laziness" category.


I'll thank you not to pat my head from on high. Creating an atmosphere where someone who is too lazy (like that street bum...and why can't he just get a job?) has a barrier to publishing and being featured is not possible for indymedia. One's who advocate the use of a spellchecker are not just somehow "elite", they become the elite when they create a forum that serves them and reflects their advocacy as the standard or status quo. This, of course, alienates and disempowers those who can read it and between the lines all too well, but would not feel like they could write it. It is a apathetic liberal self-rationalizing short-sighted newspeak to not see or want to see this very real power relationship. If indymedia enablers can't see this, it would amount to not keeping in mind the community we serve.

There are many other parts to this line of argument about power. I’ll throw some quick ones here. Language and power. History of journalism and the MEN that created it vs. the telling styles of WOMEN. History of journalism and the WHITE MEN that created it vs. the telling sytles non-whites…non-white men. You can argue till your face turns blue that without grammar and spelling there is no good communication but it always a side point. What encourages good communication when you are listeners is your intent and attention. If you really care what those people with bad spelling and grammar are saying you will hear it. If you don't, you will ignore and stick to reading that which reflects to you yourself over and over on into infinity. Nothing revolutionary there.


Bowing to a definition of journalistic integrity or political credibility that requires taking no money for your work leaves out those who can't afford to spend countless hours of their lives writing for free rather than working to do pesky things like feed, clothe and house themselves and their possible families. It's dumb. It smacks of people too afraid, ignorant, or insecure in their own political analysis or conviction to engage the complex issues of our times with a semblance of intellectual honesty.


Continuing to speak of changing your life and living it an accordance with your political analysis and conviction "rather than working to do pesky things like feed, clothe and house themselves and (their) possible families" as a impossible or unrealistic, leaves out and certainly does not encourage those who want to become something other than wage slaves. This point of view is not only dumb, it's dangerous, and it continues the cycle of oppression. This point of view smacks of people too afraid, ignorant or insecure, with little political analysis or conviciton to unchain themselves from the "complex issues of our times" (read capitalism and imperialism). I know and am encouraged by people I have met and groups that I have only heard about that have had the courage, foresight, and conviction to stay the course and to sacrifice money in order to get more time to do their political work. Do you want to change the realities of oppression, stagnation, and destruction or do you want to engage them as they are with "intellectual" honesty? Indymedia must build a true alternative and live what it wants its society to be.

Another perpspective on this is brought by PDX Dragon HERE :

For folks like Jennifer Whitney, the desire for making money as a journalist, forces them to condemn a true peoples media, overtly, or covertly. There is a conflict of interest in empowering people to tell their stories because that would reduce the chance to retain a paid position. .... Beware the person who tells you that you need them as a go between and who profits from it! The priest and the journalist are similar in this respect. Journalism is an ingrown institution. Concerned about their own self image and standing. That is one reason for the dogma of objectivity, because it fosters the pattern of content provider and consumer which is necessary for the paycheck. It subtly keeps people in the passive role.


Awehali says:

It's unfortunate that this debate about money and media essentially comes down to "be realistic and relevant" vs. "be right." I mean, OF COURSE money is a usually corrosive influence on media!


Is LiP magazine somehow immune to this corrosive influence? Why not have the courage and foresight to avoid the corrosive influence all together? "But, how can we get our easily acessible print message of our writers out to the largest possible audience?", you say. Don't get your unsustainable tree killing product out to the most people. Think small, think local. If not think about a sustainable alternative. One sustainable alternative is the digital medium. The digital medium has access problems. Focus on fixing those access problems to make it both more sustainable and more accessible. The side effect of fixing the access problems for media will be closing the information divide between have's and have not's. That's a double winner. Let's not go down the same road with the same methods, we'll end at the same point. Every publication has its price.


- salaud wrote, of Jen's (humorous) statement about the attractiveness of "counterrevolutionary" "restrictive site managers, editors, or word-count limits": "Those things are still counter-revolutionary. Of course, the author of the article finds them appealing. The article itself is counter revolutionary. The article is not really pro imperialist or anything like that, but simply comes from a reformist or status quo point of view. The point of view of the article and arguments leading from it can be best be summed up by saying, "indymedia should be a reform of the way corporate media does things, writing in the same style with the similar editorial criteria." This is not to say that some editorial policing of an indymedia site are not necessary for pragmatic reasons."

a) Jen wasn't saying those things *weren't* counterrevolutionary, and was, in fact, making a humorous and rhetorical point to set up a transition. I believe about 90% of the folks who read this article will get the oh-so-subtle nuance that salaud seems to have missed, perhaps willfully


I have to call bullshit here. She wasn't saying those things weren't counterrevolutionary. She was saying, "Now I find them appealing." What is so subtle about, "Now, I find them appealing"? If the joke was that she did find them counterrevolutionary, perhaps Awehali missed subtlety of the fact that she nows finds them appealing, that by extension her current position is counterrevolutionary. I certainly didn't willfully miss anything. I'll lob that ball back in Awehali's court on this one.


b) There is NOTHING in Whitney's argument that's reformist or status quo in any meaningful way. The "counterrevolutionary" aspersion is so debased and subjective, in this context, when articulated this sloppily, that it strikes me as comical. Arguing for effectiveness and discussing ways to actually be more effective -- whether you agree with the article's arguments or not -- is not tantamount to being counterrevolutionary. And just because salaud wants to offer hir ill-conceived interpretation of Jen's piece doesn't make it so. It's opinion masquerading as analysis.


There's NOTHING? Then that must have been a hella-revolutionary article and I must have just been asleep. I don't agree with the her article's arguments. Specifically, her solutions to her valid critiques of indymedia. But, plainly her solutions ARE a restatement of the status quo. As a courtesy, please state her solutions and frameworks to the current problems of indymedia and show how these are somehow different from the status quo of the principles of "journalism."

Further, what Awehali is trying to do by saying my article is "opinion masquerading as analysis" is to invoke a chimeric distinction from "journalism" to discredit my article. This is exactly what I (and PDX Dragon) were illustrating about the power relationships created by those that are trying to be "journalists". It means hiding behind and using "journalistic" principles as weapons against those that would speak truth other than them or agaist them. Everyone knows that there is hardly any distinction in "journalism", and especially truly corporate (as in INC, LLC, LLP, Sole Proprietarship), between opinion and analysis. The both inform and influence each other. I am transparent about it, Awehali tries to use it as a shield and a sword. Somehow we are supposed to believe that Awehali's piece is not personally motivated opinion and analysis at the same because he is a "journalist" and Editor and mine is.


And, um, salaud, are you noting the internal contradiction of your charges against Jen's piece, as you articulate them in this paragraph, and your statement that ***some editorial policing of indymedia sites is necessary for pragmatic reasons?***


There is no contradiction to be had. The pragmatic policing that I am speaking of comes from a different framework. Portland gets hundreds of posts a week, alot of them re-posts of corporate and other articles, duplicates (accidental and deliberate), and deliberate attemps to reduce the functionality of the site. It is pragmatic for us to put the re-posts off the newswire in a separate section, leave only one copy of duplicates, and remove deliberate attempts to reduce the functionality of the site. This is NO WAY means editing of articles, choosing not to feature an article on the basis of its grammatic and spelling content, or on any other basis similar for which Whitney is encouraging. There are still obviously parts of the editorial policy which are not based on pragmatism for an indymedia (such as Portland) to not leave hate posts on the newswire.


For the record, the copyright statement at the end of the UCIMC version of the piece is kind of a non-copyright statement. Jen "owns" her copyright for her work, and the UCIMC reproduced it, as the statement says, without any "authorizations." LiP does, in fact, place a copyright notice on articles that appear on our site, but it's important to note that this is a matter of strategy, not capitulation to capitalist conceptions of intellectual property. We do it mostly so people who want to reprint stuff that's appeared in LiP are compelled to email us and ask! We want to know about it! I don't think we've ever turned down a fellow non-profit or grassroots media project when they've asked to use something from LiP. But automated corporate "content aggregators," as well as some who would seek to undermine or co-opt our efforts, are somewhat slowed by copyright notices.


First let's take the quotation marks off of "owns". Jen owns her copyright. I own my copyrights. Let's not pretend what they are and why we did it? Most of Awehali's response is rationalization for the sacred cow of taking money and following corporate media models to make media like this paragraph.

Giving LiP the benefit of the doubt, which I think is totally proper in the case of their type of publication, if the strategy is to compell people to ask permission, why not just use a much less restrictive license? One that allows free distribution of the article for anyone not making money and compels those making money to ask permission or give them no permission at all? Even though what LiP does is not really important to me at all, my article is about indymedia, I think there are other areas more toward the radical side of the spectrum of capitulation to the capitalist conceptions that they could be taking.


In other words, if the mere presence of an automated copyright blurb at the end of an article really "sums it up" for salaud, then I think that really sums up the value and substance of salaud's critique.

Now there is most likely a deliberate mis-representation of what I meant and another attempt to a hand waving discreditation to my article. I wasn't talking about the "mere presence of an automated copyright blurb", I was talking about the fact that Whitney owns a copyright to the material and that LiP agrees or capitulates (there's a lot of capitulating going on from Whitney and LiP's perspectives) to it. Still, if one thinks that one's article, especially a critique of indymedia for g*d's sake, should be copyrighted, that is "Nuff Said" for me. That person has no idea and no conviction about indymedia or its direction.


- "Et tu [blank]" is ALWAYS a maudlin, overwrought gagfest. And, as is certainly true in this case, those who employ it are usually enamored of its razor without comprehending its actual meaning. What, did salaud suffer some fatal metaphorical stabbing at the hands of the murderous Joshua Brietbart? Is salaud actually taking on the figurative mantle of Julius Caesar (by way of Shakespeare)--which is deeply and humorously ironic no matter HOW you look at it--while calling Brietbart a traitor for saying, literally, that independent media needs to grow and diversify?


Again, of course, another transparent misrepresentation of what I was saying, that I would only expect to find in true "journalism." Of course, the Caesarian character is not me, but indymedia. As to comprehending its actual meaning, I was quoting from Shakespeare, a fiction, which seems to be most historical source that Awehali knows for the account of Caesar's death, which is ironic anyway you look at it. I was also more importantly alluding to the scene in Plutarch's, "The Fall of the Roman Empire", (pp 272-273 of the 1958 edition by Penquin Classics), which I have read, and to which I imagine and Shakespeare and Awehali have had access, and which I think is very instructive in the slippery slope that we go down when we capitulate little by little to the status quo.

Maybe, I should have instead quoted from the Plutarch, and made Breitbart the character of Casca who struck the first blow. Plutarch reports:

At almost the same moment the striker of the blow (Casca) and he who was struck cried out together - Caesar, in Latin, "Casca, you villain, what are you doing?" while Casca called to his brother in Greek: 'Help, brother'

Casca, I say, your brother LiP magazine has come to your aid.

Lastly, because I can't resist either, I will say that if indymedia capitulates little by little and uses the same tyrannical methods, frameworks and standards of "journalism" that some like Whitney and LiP magazine and their ilk seem to profess as solutions to indymedia's problems, I must say, as is more appropriately attributed to Brutus after putting Caesar out of business, 'Sic Semper Tyrannis' (Thus Ever to Tyrants).

-END-

post scriptum: Any chance the next time there is a sacred cow issue of LiP, that critiques of "independent" journalism such as mine will be included. Can we sacrifice that cow?

Whitney responded to my response an others HERE . Please read it.

Here is my response (blockquotes are going to get stripped):

This is generally a response to Whitney. However, it is one of the last responses I can write, at this time, because, though I love this topic, and I love indymedia, frankly, my fingers and brain get tired, so it will also include, near the end, more general responses. I will try to keep it shorter, 'cause lord knows, as some have noted, my responses have been expansive. I can only defend their length by saying that I am passionate about making indymedia something great and think about the topic a lot.

I am going to go point by point again:


1) Salaud inserts hir clever little "(sic)" into the title given to my article by Alternet. So go take it up with them—the title of my article, as published in that commercial publication, LiP Magazine, is "Make Media, Make Real Trouble: What's Wrong (and Right) With Indymedia."

Fair enough.

Whitney says:

2) I have never chosen to put my work under copyright. If you look at the hard copy of LiP (did anyone buy a copy? There are beautiful photos donated by Indymedia photographers, not to mention lots of great articles too) you will see that all articles are copyright to LiP, not to individual authors.

Awehali, Editor of LiP magazine says:

For the record, the copyright statement at the end of the UCIMC version of the piece is kind of a non-copyright statement. Jen "owns" her copyright for her work, and the UCIMC reproduced it, as the statement says, without any "authorizations." LiP does, in fact, place a copyright notice on articles that appear on our site, but it's important to note that this is a matter of strategy, not capitulation to capitalist conceptions of intellectual property.


I am not sure who to trust here. I am betting on Whitney being correct.

Whitney says:

I would prefer that LiP, and any other magazine with which I publish, use copyleft or Creative Commons, and yet I understand and respect Brian Awehali's explanation of why LiP articles get copywritten. Sometimes I work with people, and publications, with whom I disagree on a few things. Maybe that's hard for some people to imagine doing.


I am going to say this a few times in this article, because I think (I hope) we are reaching the end of this round of talking about this topic online at least. I want to try to communicate to Whitney that my article and more especially this one is not meant as personal attack for what Whitney or LiP magazine does with their lives/projects. My article is about indymedia. I am saying that those things that they do don't match with the philosophy or apply to indymedia. They aren't the right paths for our work. Not that they are horrible mean nasty ugly things to do for other paths.

Now, I just want to say that in indymedia we cannot come to a place of respectful understanding about why an indymedia would copywrite anything on a website. It's wrong. It's the antithesis of what we should be trying to accomplish in indymedia work. As an indymedia enabler I and others work with people that we disagree with on a few things all the time. I personally feel more willing to work with liberals and perhaps even some more libertarian types than others, at least here at Portland. I think it is important to empower everyone. That's about me. But, I think that indymedia enablers should be willing to enable people with whom they disagree. By and large they do....so success! I disagree with Josh (I know I didn't show him in a good light perhaps with respect to his statement) and Sascha on some things. I still think they are great because they are committed to doing this indymedia work. That is to say that while on the continuum of indymedia philosophy and pratice we may be far apart, on the continuum of people on the whole, we are very close together. The fact that we have so much more in common than not, should not prevent me or anyone else from having a very real critique, that is meant to be constructive. I don't fault Whitney for trying to do that. I think I make that statement in the first line(s) of my article. I don't think that the critique was altogether constructive because it didn't provide solutions that I think will help indymedia and it singled out and misrepresented Portland.

Whitney says:

3) I have been paid for journalism twice in the five years that I've been publishing; both times by a London-based magazine. However, I think that whether I get paid or not is beside the point, though I find it amusing that so many people have chosen to vilify me based on the assumption that I'm making money as a writer.


For my part I don't want to villify Whitney for taking money for articles. I just don't want it to be considered ok for indymedia work. Again, it's fine and dandy if you want to do that in different projects, but I would tend to villify those that said they should apply to indymedia. Except, for a very few in this world, we all walk multiple paths in this life. I respect and am encouraged by those that try to make all aspects of their lives unified with respect to their politics and conviction. I cannot do that now, I think. Not many can. I have to go to work in a capitalist world to pay for my rent and to enable others to do media. I can't pretend that I don't contribute to capitalism by working in it. We couldn't pretend we weren't contributing to the tyranny of corporate media by using it's tactics (intellectual property and others) in indymedia. Indymedia needs a chance to grow in an environment that does not capitulate or take on the poisons of the old "journalism" right now, or ever. We must stay away from those ways of doing things or we will de done before we have even really started. Indymedia was born in new tactics, we are developing new tactics and philosophies now, let's continue to walk this new path and not regress for a while.

Whitney says:

Now I want to address the subtle, and not-so-subtle twists of my words, and attempts to mislead readers. First, by not posting my article in full, Salaud sets the reader up to read hir rebuttal before the piece that inspired it. That's not what I think of as honest or well-intentioned - it's the equivalent of loading the dice. S/he claims that by not posting it, s/he is just following policy. I don't buy it.

I think accusing me of trying to mislead readers is unfair. That's the last thing I would want to do since I accused Whitney of it. As mentioned in at least one comment to this article already I put the link to the original article in the first line of the article (before the article even starts really). I never mentioned anything about policy in any of my posts on MY posting of the article. I'm not sure where that came from. Notice that the link to my rebuttal on the US feature and UC IMC is a tiny little thing, that someone had to point out to me, because I didn't see it. If you want to talk about honest or well-intentioned Whitney should ask her friends at UC and US/NYC to reload the dice for my response on their sites if fairness is what Whitney really wants. In terms of policy, that OTHERS might enforce, we don't actually feature anything that's not local original content. Our feature column, which has new articles appearing almost every day, has almost exclusively local original content which serves our community. This is something that Whitney seems to be advocating for, yet when we have a clear policy to do it, she doesn't buy why we would want to enforce it. It seems that non-local reposts from corporate media (Alternet) have generally only gotten a link in a feature in the past.

I'm just going to say a summary of things about the hate posts (and Portland specifically). I am a Jew. I will not stand for nazi or facists hate posts on Portland or any other indymedia site. I know the people who enable the Portland site very well. I know that not one of them would let a newswire post like that stay up, if they caught it. Whitney simply has not done the research about the current state of things at Portland. The person from whom she has gotten an e-mail most likely has not been directly involved in the collective effort for some time. I can't verify this, but I am pretty sure. If I'm not right, I'm sure I'll get the next e-mail. Portland indymedia gets hundreds of posts a week. However, what is different from a lot of sites is that a great percentage of these posts are legitimate, local and/or original content or decent reposts. I do a little site work from time to time and I can verify this. Whitney and others can believe it or not, but at our meetings we when we talk about post moderation, we are talking about things in the context of the sheer effort to read or even skim everything. We get better and better at catching these hate posts. One of the things coming out of the indymedia projects, from a technical side, is the evolution of filtering hate posts and things like them. Whitney makes it sound like Portland, or anyone who enables the site, somehow agrees with the content of the hate posts (7 out of 10,000) and deliberately leaves them up. That's misleading and callous and just not true. It may have been true when she was in Portland, but not now. Whitney is talking about the people I know well and she is wrong. That's it. Just wrong. Let me just catch the person whom I know who agrees with these hate postings.

Whitney says:

Salaud also says that "She characterized her points as being about grammar, hate posts, and access for underserved communities. These may not have been her true points or motivations, but it's what she said."

I don't know what it would mean to "characterize" my points, and I certainly didn't "say" that those were my points. I wrote an article, which was about, among other things, effective communication and some things that detract from it. It was not an article about hate posts or bad grammar.


To characterize one's points means that one opens a paragraph, says explicitly this is the next point one would like to talk about, or otherwise signals this is a point that one is trying to make. It's hard to assume one is not trying to make a point about hate posts and grammar when one spends about 6 paragraphs on them combined. It's just my opinion about effective communication, without being a personal attack against Whitney, that to write an article about "effective communication and some things that detract from it" and not an article "about hate posts or bad grammar", it would be best to leave the parts about hate posts and bad grammar out so that people can concentrate on your central point, and especially leave those parts about hate posts and grammar out if they amount to unnecessary misleading personal attacks that will just serve to further make readers miss your central point. I would say that grinding a personal axe and/or singling out people you are supposedly trying to work with or constructively critique in a public forum detracts from effective communication. This statement certainly has to be true. Grinding axes and singling out may be good "journalism", but it doesn't encourage trust or understanding. In the indymedia world, which should be free from hierarchies or other such, trust and understanding is all we have.

Whitney says:

And while we're on the subject of communication: Reading IS communication, Salaud - communication between writers and readers. It's communication that is mediated by time, and distance, and paper, and sometimes things like editors, publishing houses, money, distributors, book stores, infoshops, etc. Most communication is mediated in some way or other, (and let's please not pretend that participating in an IMC discussion is somehow less mediated than reading when you've also got the electric companies, the folks who made your browser, and your computer, the telecom that provides your connection, bla bla bla)

But, reading is only ONE HALF of written communication. Whitney - a fair and just communication, without power and access mitigating, must be between writers and readers in the same locus (place), thus with equal power to share their points. If you are standing on a stage with a microphone in a stadium and I am standing outside the stadium on the street with just my voice, you may have told and I may have responded, but this is not fair. We must both use the same or similar microphone in the same or similar place so that the same people can hear us. This is what I think Whitney is missing. If LiP magazine broadcasts someone's writing, that is the writing part, it get's distributed through the internet and in bookstores and cafes and has money behind it to make it pretty. This is the microphone on the stage in the stadium. What are the readers then supposed to do have equal voice to speak back to the writer and to the other readers? This is the person outside the stadium on the street with only their voice. We want to get as close to an unmediated media as we can get. Clearly, if LiP magazine would publish in their entirety any and all responses to an article that were written by readers, then it would be ok to talk about the communciation being between writers and readers, without worrying about access and voice.

Indymedia, has the challenge of rising to that level of unmediated communication, for those that participate. Not only is this a theory, but it is also true. Let's not pretend that indymedia doesn't do it. When Whitney's article was posted in whole (I assume) to UC IMC, anyone could read it and anyone could respond to it in whole, un-edited. You will not see all the comments and responses to Whitney's article in the next issue of LiP, in whole, un-edited. That is the obvious. Things aren't equal between the different means and vehicles for doing media. Indymedia IS more unmediated communication between readers and writers. It is probably the best in the media domain, except for face to face communication where everyone shares the same microphone and has the same apparent volume. Print publication has always been a one-sided communication, make any small allowances for letters to the editor (geez) that you want. It still is.

Whitney says further:

I certainly didn't encourage passive consumption of my article, nor did Brian encourage passive consumption of LiP. We seek to engage our readers, or audience, or community, or whatever you'd like to call it. We set out to communicate, and, thankfully, lots of people are joining in and communicating with us.


I'm not saying that Whitney wants passive consumption of her article, but using a money making print medium (LiP) definitely DOES encourage passive consumption of the article. I'm not saying that the article WAS passively consumed. It wasn't. Luckily, we have indymedia as vehicle from which to respond. Without it, where would we go to respond on anything like equal footing? If Whitney or Brian did not want to encourage passive consumption they could do many things, but primarily, A) Use indymedia or something like it as the vehicle so that people could respond on the same terms as the writers wrote or B) Print any and all responses, in their entirety, in a following issue of LiP. One's readers, audience, community (I hate those words because they are so passive) must be enagaged on equal footing. It is not fair to engage them where you have more voice. You all set out to communicate, but unfortunately, we cannot join in and communicate with you on equal footing. We do not have the money to print and distribute our own issue of LiP with our critiques and approvals. Our critiques, approvals, and contributions will fall silent upon most of the ears of the LiPs readership.

Why is this point, which seems so obvious, so hidden? I think it must be because we have accepted this status quo for so long we never question it anymore. Like our represtentational government system, we have grown to accept the mediation and difference in voice and say perhaps even that it cannot be changed. There are alternatives like indymedia, let's use them as our primary vechicle. Would one be slumming to publish one's article on indymedia exclusively and not to get that advantage in voice that is afforded by an, at least, nationally distributed publication? We must act in they we want to see the world work.

Whitney says:

I recognize the potential of open publishing, and I believe in the power of storytelling - otherwise I wouldn't have spent three years of my life co-editing a book comprising 55 stories from 26 countries—stories that were written, with few exceptions, by unknown writers. I also know that, as Thoughts suggested in hir recent post, not everyone has the luxury of spending lots of time reading through mountains of posts to the newswire. Open publishing is neat, and it has a lot of faults. But I never suggested that a solution to those faults is that all Indymedias should have editors correcting and fact-checking all posts, nor that everyone who posts should be sure they write in AP style. I sure don't.


I truly believe that Whitney does believe in the power of storytelling and is trying to help in some way. Whitney's response seems to me to try to fend off personal attacks on her. I don't come to attack her. I am sure she has and does much good. I just disagree with the solutions that she proposes to indymedia's very real problems. Not everyone has the luxury of spending lots of time reading through posts to the newswire. The fact that there are lots of posts to the newswire of local original content (at least in Portland) is NOT one if it's faults. That's backwards speak. The fact that so many people are now writing and that it is hard to keep up with them is its greatest STRENGTH. Is that easy to be seen? The solution to the problem of not being able to read so much writing is NOT to limit that writing to a few "good" sources, especially not print media. That's exactly what we are fighting against. The tyranny of a few sources of information bringing the population at large to its knees and keeping it there. We are, as a culture, starving for information in a sea of it. It's the fault of our oppulence. When we quench the thirst to finally write something, we gorge. That is our america, perhaps with global media companies and traditional american "journalism" exported, that is our world.

The way we solve the problem of sorting out what an individual wants to read from the mountain of writings is by rising to the challenge and getting better at providing new tools that allow an individual to make those choices. For instance, at Portland we are working on a, yet unreleased, version of the newswire that will allow a user to quickly separate local from non-local and reposts from original. Users can already just look at posts on topics that interest them. These are not necessarily novel solutions on the web in general, but we are doing it for a different purpose, in a different way. Also, let's, in the broader indymedia context, stop talking about the audience, some passive mass that supposedly has some collective will, and let's focus on empowering the individual who comes to the site and writes or reads something.

Whitney says:

I don't know too many people who use any Indymedia site regularly. I lived in Portland for three years, and didn't know many folks there who use their local site either. Over the years, in my work and in my travels, I started asking people why. Their answers became the foundation for my article—an article that is, of course, just one person's opinion (people keep slamming it on that basis, as though their own posts were somehow more than that),...


It is so ironic that you are speaking about Portland here. To us it seems misleading and insulting. But, giving the benefit of the doubt, it could just be that Whitney hasn't checked the current facts about Portland. Portland is actually, today and not when Whitney lived here apparently (even given the selectivity bias and anecdotal nature of her interviews during that time), a site used very much regularly by the community. A community that I can't personally thank enough for having the courage and foresight to turn it into what it is now. Portland indymedia is only its posters, the same way you can't have a school without students (I'm not trying to imply any power relationship here). No writers, no readers. You can have writers without readers, but can't have readers without writers. Writing is primary.

I think the only thing, as I said before, that separates Whitney's opinion from others' opinions is that hers was broadcast widely in a money making print publication as well as Alternet, and indymedia. As a symptom of our media sickness, when something gets published in that way, it lends it not only more voice, but it also tends to attach to it more authority. This is because a common reader feels that someone(s) have put their money into putting it on a printing press and distributing it and because an Editor, who commonly is thought to have some authority in choosing the good from the bad, the important from the trival, and the factual from the opinion, has chosen it. So, yes, I agree that the article is just Whitney's opinion, as much as my articles are just my opinion. But, all things are not equal then. Her opinion is couched in the mystique of "journalistic" authority and perhaps considered pure analysis for a great deal of its readers, while my opinion, I believe, is more informed (or if not, more appropriate) for indymedia and characterized (at least by herr Editor) as been purely opinion and not analysis to a great deal of its readers.

Whitney says further:

More on personal opinions: In Salaud's response called "Picky," I found it interesting that s/he sets up a dichotomy of "Her assumption" vs. "Correct assumption." I'd like to know why and how Salaud's personal opinion gets transmogrified into being the "correct" one.


My opinion didn't get transmogrified (I like that word) into being the correct one. I feel and still feel it IS the correct one. I cannot apologize or back pedal on that. I feel passionately and sincerely that my solutions are best. I think there is right from wrong. I'm not saying that those who disagree are bad people or that we shouldn't work together, or that our opinions can't co-exist, they obviously do, but neither do I think they are proposing the right solutions. But, I'm sure open to some well thought out reasons, new visions, of why indymedia should apply "journalism"'s status quo models to our work. But, not just a restatement of why they work in other contexts and assumption without real analysis of why they would work for indymedia. We want true unmediated passionate information. And, by hook or by crook we will. But, can we concencrate on hook?

Whitney says:

Another example of Salaud putting words in my mouth: "Whitney is the one saying that to be exemplary means you must be like UC, NYC, North Texas IMC, not me." I said nothing of the sort. .... Exemplary, to me, means different things for different communities. I did not and do not advocate a cookie-cutter model of media making, and resent having my words twisted so.


Whitney put these in her Exemplary IMCs section at the bottom of her article, to which I was refering. Was I dreaming? I've got to stop staring at this computer. My eyes must be going bad. Perhaps Whitney might argue, "it depends on what you mean by 'say'." I'm sorry to get personal here. I want to avoid that in this article. But, accusing me of twisting (and I don't mean the dance) is a personal attack. I don't turn the other cheek very well, if you haven't noticed.

I won't say much about the cities list other than to re-iterate things I said in a comment here. I think the cities list is a side point. But, it takes the form of a singled out critique against Portland in Whitney's article. I think the cities list can take some getting used to and there's lots of room for improvement. It is just a starting point. But, I think it is like learning another language or learning the metric system (for 'yanks). It's good medicine. It moves away from our isolationist and imperialist ways of thought. Just the practice of trying to figure out where "things are now" leads in that direction.

I will say that mostly the REAL reason the people who don't like the cities list at Portland don't like it is because Portland dares to do something different and be autonomous and brave in that action. No one, even dissenters, really like difference, dissent, and autonomy. It's something to get used to for sure.

Whitney says:

Salaud also says that by being "picky" s/he is actually flattering or being respectful of me. I must say I didn't feel flattered or respected in the least when s/he (though with this, I suspect maybe he) referred to me, demeaningly, as "miss Whitney." Would s/he be so quick to belittle me if I wrote with a male or gender-neutral name?


I think it was not flattering to use "miss" there instead of "Ms.". I apologize. But, don't throw that hand waving gender bias at me. That's not fair. I took Whitney's article as real, serious, and dangerous. I responded to it, what I consider respectfully and flatteringly, point by point. When someone takes the time, sacrifice, and careful thought to respond to me in any type of communication, I consider that flattering. Believe me, and you can laugh, but I've spent a lot of time responding here, which I do not feel has been wasted, to Whitney, Awehali, and to my indymedia comrades. Whitney's gender has nothing to do with how I respond. That accusation is certainly not flattering and is divisive. In fact, because of my politics about gender identity I try to avoid gender pronouns altogether. Of course, I don't always do that, no one is perfect. I appreciate a "Hir" and a "Ze" every now and again. But, I frankly prefer that you just call me a Salaud. Which I am sure you want to by now.

I want to conclude by saying very clearly that as to the people involved in this discussion, Whitney, Awehali, and all the other posters, I value them and respect them. I value and respect all people trying to get a different voice, a socially just voice, to be heard through print, web, radio, and video that take money. I don't consider that indymedia, but I do consider them allies. I value and respect all the people doing indymedia work in UC and NYC. I consider them comrades. We have much more alike than different. In fact, there's only one person involved around NYC IMC that I can't call a brother or a sister, because he won't let me. There will always be those.

I still disagree about the solutions to indymedia's problems and feel that the best directions for us are the one's that I have discussed. I hope that my other indymedia comrades in the network will agree with me, of course. I may only post a time or two more, if there's some sort of personal attack or a really good NEW point raised. But, I look forward to another round of these discussions perhaps online, but perhaps even better face to face over some beers at the next indymedia conference.

-END-

ps. Ok, so this wasn't that short. I owe you all a beer or vegan nachos for reading all the way through. Youth Unite!

Sorry but this warrants a response:

"But, don't throw that hand waving gender bias at me. That's not fair. I took Whitney's article as real, serious, and dangerous."

Anyone who's actively conscious of gender issues (at least anyone I know) would never refer to a woman as Miss. Clearly what you've done is used "Miss Whitney" to take away some of that authority and "danger" that you find so threatening in her article. But it backfired because she called you on it.

You fucked up and you've only proven how much by crying out that she's playing the "gender card".

I'm not going to get involved with this debate other than to say that there seem to be a lot of really good people here arguing over things that are really not mutually exclusive.

If you want indymedia to be some slick CNN-competing, activist news outlet then fine, make some great reports, do some great reporting (as it sounds you have already been doing!) and teach others to do the same (again, as it sounds you have been doing!) .


If you want Indymedia to be a site where you can vent your rants, post your random photos from the demo, give a super-quick update on events or police movements etc from a mobile internet device (as was done loads in scotland recently), declare an action or just use the comments boxes as a discussion forum (like now), then fine, that seems to be what it is used for largely anyway (elliciting the original essay). Yes it may be cluttered and not compete with reuters for coverage of some events, but it serves as a great community center for those of us more concerned with personal issues.


I don't see why the two can't exist side by side, the UK IM (the one i have most experience with) seems to go just fine, the news wire has a constant source of comment, discussions, conspiracy theories, rants, updates, ideas and information whilst the main articles section is used largely by people who have composed a proper article. These obviously vary in quality, but then, you'll never get the good stuff unless people can practice and get feedback on their earlier attempts...

Indymedia is what it is, and more importantly, is what we make it.. rather than arguing about whos vision for indymedia is right or better or more 'revolutionary' why don't you continue doing what you feel is best and we'll see what we create together.

Love.xx


Notes:

1. Regarding the mapping of IMC sites by local geography.

I think the map thing is great! I have a friend who is putting together an atlas of the world that shows pictures of the globe from different angles, it uses local naming for regions and shows the topography and the globe as a globe, not a flat surface (so its kinda like looking from a space ship!!) It has no country names or demarquations and no reference to the imaginary political landscape of our planet at all.... it's awesome! I think naming places according to local tradition is a great way to undermine the assumption that nation-states are somehow 'natural' or inevitable. I would probably put the citys alphabetically below though as people are likely to use different naming conventions.

2. Regarding the refusal to exclude Nazi Postings.

Excluding people and their opinions from our communities is to fail in our project of a better world at the first hurdle. If Nazis want to post, so be it, if you can't surpass them by force of reason and example then you don't deserve to have them out of your town. Show the alienated youth they appeal to how much more you have to offer, understand the insecurities that cause them to behave in such ways and create opportunities to discuss these with them in an environment they are comfortable with. I have had amazing conversations with racist football hooligans before, opening them up and discussing why they think and do what they do, you'll normally find very scared, very insecure and very (emotionally) lonely people. Crushing Facisim by censorship, violence and intimidation is only to support it.

Anyway, who decides what is and isn't acceptable information to be spread to others!?!? You? Me? Our Parents? The Catholic Church? The State?

Trust others to be able to make up their own minds.. isn't that what this is all about anyway?