From the perspective of a journalist and activist, Jennifer Whitney critically evaluates indymedia, focussing on the concept of open publishing, and the contents it encourages.

She states that the few original articles "are frequently riddled with unsubstantiated claims, rumors, dubious anonymous sources, bad writing, and/or plagiarism", and that few contributors take the time to produce edited and carefully written material: "People seem to forget that writing and photography are skills that people develop over many years." She regrets that facts are rarely verified, and that attempts to introduce fact-checking "are often met with cries of "Censorship!".

Effectively, Whitney argues for a re-establishment of the separation between journalist and audience, a boundary that indymedia set out to dissolve: "the burden to communicate effectively belongs to the active party--the teller--not the audience." For her, the anarchic openness of many indymedia newswires points to a lack of "respect or concern for our audience".

In my experience, the faults listed by Whitney are realities, even though a glance at the middle columns of many imc websites might lead to a more optimistic evaluation of the visibility of original articles. However, I feel that in her overall critique (and maybe out of frustration felt by an active indymedia contributor), Whitney has overlooked one crucial function of indymedia: the empowerment of people to gain the confidence not only to begin to publish self-made photos, texts, audio- and video files, but also to experiment with new media technologies collaboratively, actively and politically.

Using the internet with all its accessories in a different way from what is being suggested to us should not be taken for granted. Writing private diaries, shopping and selling, consuming news, things and services is being encouraged. But to use all those tools, from database-driven newswires to wikis, from mailing lists to chatrooms and Voip, and a multitude of other applications like SMS-to-newswire, tools for archiving, dispatch and translation, is something that continuously needs to be practiced, learned and developed. Indymedia is one of the spaces where the internet is being appropriated for the purposes of social movements. This includes the often annoying process to invent and practice ways of horizontal online decision-making within a global network. Whitney mentions the tediousness of this process, but from her perspective as a journalist who takes pride in well-written articles finds it difficult to acknowledge its zapatista-inspired purpose: "to buid a network of communication among all our struggles and resistances".

Indymedia websites as a result of a process of appropriating the internet for the purpose of social movments may be hard to navigate. They certainly require much patience, local knowledge and goodwill, no matter wether one wants to read the sites, maintain them or publish on them.

I can wholeheartedly join in with Jennifer Whitney's desire for well-written, well-researched, even poetic and creative journalism, lovingly crafted pieces of political observation and critical analysis. However, I think she misses the point if she really wants to reserve the indymedia newswires for this type of communication, for the thoughtful and knowledgeable writitngs of authors who dedicate their live to writing (or making images).

Interestingly, Whitney is not the only activisty, politically aware person who gets the wrong end of the stick when it comes to evaluating indymedia. In her analysis of the video "the battle of seattle", Hito Steierl saw images of the physical indymedia center. Contrary to Whitney, her conclusion at the time was that the production of indymedia reporting was very similar to corporate news production. Sara Platoon has tried to analyse the similarities and differences between indymedia and corporate news production more thoroughly.

Technically, Indymedia has the capacity to create spaces to collect those carefully written pieces of journalism. However, it looks as if those writers (as well as audio and image producers) who spend weeks on a piece are not the people who predominantly choose to use indymedia.

Well-researched journalism needs time, skills and experience, and, for those who dedicate their lives to this type of work, it needs funding (while we are all trying to invent an opensource concept to pay our living expenses :-). Whereas indymedia is an ongoing unpaid experiment for everyone, for quick news, general communication within social movements, and sometimes, if someone prioritises it, more elaborate pieces of local stories, documentations, history from below.