Indymedia's Credibility Undermined by Nutters

db | 22.09.2001 16:26

Strange people are taking over this site...

Indymedia was always somewhere to go and find an alternative take on the news. But ever since the attacks on the USA it seems to have become a magnet for complete wierdos, conspiricy theorists and apocalyptic doom merchants.... and those are the more balanced contributors.

Some of the stuff here is unbelievably ridiculous, not to say offensive.

But the problem is that without a proper disclaimer somewhere on the homepage; making it clear that any idiot can post any idiotic thing on this site the concept of Indymedia as a credible alternative voice to the mainstream is being seriously undermined.

If all this site is meant to be is a sort virtual soapbox for people to have their little rant, then fine -- I thought it was a place for independent journalists and activists to provide their take on important processes and events.

But some of the proto-religious apocalyptic conspiricy crap is.... well, it's just crap innit.

db
e-mail: darius2001@hotmail.com

Comments

Hide the following 21 comments

Site kix ass!

22.09.2001 17:05

Indymedia, as far as I'm concerend is an open forum for alternative journalism, media activists, and people who wish to comment on various events and news topics.

I think that since the US thingie the site has really taken off with some excellent commentary both factual and speculative.

I suppose the speculative articles are what you -someone clearly duped by the anti-conspiracy message as an ideological weapon- actually mean by conspiracy theories. Well, we need to speculate to investigate, Mr.

And besides, if you don't like it....y'can feck off!

Moonray

US thingie?!

22.09.2001 17:35

The "US thingie" ?!

Thingie????!

It looked like a fucking mass murder to me.

Oh, I get it... it's like the the sanctions what-not in Iraq perhaps? Or the food-thingie in Sudan or the Jewish do-dah in southern Poland in the early 1940s.

Yeah right.

My point was that the way the site is laid out, there ought to be a disclaimer, just making it clear that there is no censorship on the site and that anyone can write anything they want.

All I am thinking about is the credibility of those contributors who are independent journalists who might be undermined.

Say an Independent journalistbhas an important story they need to publicise -- if they are linked to the sort of speculative shite that soem of the loons who have begun to materialise on this site are writing, it is not going to help.

Of course it is important to explore alternative axplanations -- but do we really think that the CIA hijacked those planes and killed all those people to justify a strike on Al-Quaida? They have enough excuses alreday: USS Cole , Embassy bombings etc. if they simply want to attack Afghanistan or aspects of the bin Laden organisation.

When I was at DSEI and the news came through some peopel there -- who probably weren't really thinking straight or didn't know the full scale of the murders were actually cheering at the news.... and that at an anti-arms trade demo...

Shame upon shame.

Yup, that US thingie sure has screwed up a few people's agendas... not least among some "folk" round here.

db
mail e-mail: daruis2001@hotmail.com

Retain rigour or be further marginalised

22.09.2001 18:36

Darius is absolutely right, on two counts: (1) if Indymedia is going to be used as a sounding board for conspiracist loons, a disclaimer should be put up in order that the core of the site retain its credibility as a serious journalistic source. (2) Too many activists (including some vocal if outspoken thuggish hecklers at last night's antiwar rally in London) are downplaying the horror of the attack on innocent civilians in NY & DC, out of a barely-articulated sense that (a) the victims are American and therefore linked with an imperialist terror state, (b) since the mainstream media dont get upset when Palestinians, Iraqis and Rwandans are murdered en masse, why should we activists join in when the same media ostentatiously bemoan the loss of a few thousand Americans. These sentiments (and they're widely, if barely-consciously, held) are hypocritical and dangerous. We have to oppose violence AND recognise that the likely perpetrators of this violence are our sworn enemies, too, as Christopher Hitchens points out in the Nation magazine (

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011008&s=hitchens):

"The bombers of Manhattan represent fascism with an Islamic face, and there's no point in any euphemism about it. What they abominate about "the West," to put it in a phrase, is not what Western liberals don't like and can't defend about their own system, but what they do like about it and must defend: its emancipated women, its scientific inquiry, its separation of religion from the state. Loose talk about chickens coming home to roost is the moral equivalent of the hateful garbage emitted by Falwell and Robertson, and exhibits about the same intellectual content."

Palash
mail e-mail: palash@lineone.net
Homepage: http://www.palash.tv

clarification

22.09.2001 18:44

To clarify my last contribution (last sentence of para 1), I meant to say that we have to oppose FURTHER violence (ie any military retaliation by Bush/Blair) - and that;s our main job now - but we also have to oppose the likely fascistic perpetrators of the WTC attack itself. If it IS Bin Laden, remember that his co-ideologues are the people who threw acid on unveiled women's faces in Kabul and Karachi. We must stand against the practitioners (and for the victims) of fascism and imperialism, whatever pious guise they don.

Palash
mail e-mail: palash@lineone.net

Doh

22.09.2001 19:20

Why not look at the IMC statement thingie about the philosophy of the site.
I haven't read on this site anyone saying that the CIA hijacked the planes, though that's not to put it past them, but we have to remember that there are other forces at play here. Seriously.

Moonray

A SERIOUS POINT ...

22.09.2001 21:12

I can live with the ranting 'n stuff.

But what makes me wonder is how some
doddy stuff makes it on the imc uk
newsletter since recently.

Seems that some of that dubious stuff
has been edited by Indymedia, which
turns my wondering into a serious question
about Indymedia's present code of praxis.

And what about all these rumours on
internal struggles at Indymedia UK?

Clues and/or answers anybody?

fatimah
mail e-mail: fatimah@girlfish.net

Dangers

22.09.2001 22:40

Folks never mind the conspiracy stuff, people are entitled to believe any kind of crazy shite, of more concern is the fact that shortly after Sept. 11 there were several posts supporting the bombing. Now this could be the work of nutters or agents, but at a time when both Polish and Irish T.V. have people saying anti-capitalist protestors may have done this, I don't really have to point out how dangerous this is. The idea about a disclaimer is a good one, for starters.

http://www.struggle.ws/freeearth.html

Free Earth
mail e-mail: earthfree@hotmail.com

conspiracy theorists

22.09.2001 22:43

the whole world has changed - an idiot is leading us in to world war 3 followed by little tony yapping at his heels - everything you once held true is lost as anyone watching those air manouevres must realise - its not the same gameplan any more - everything has been revealed - follow your own intuition for once

dwight heet

Sheeple

22.09.2001 23:01

Indymedia is about freedom of speech. Remember that? Those you like to label as loonies are entitled to their opinion, as much as you who think you are sane. There is more evidence to implicate George Bush than Bin Laden, but that sounds like conspiracy so you'd better believe the hype, stay with the herd, censor each other.

Ras Putin

conspiracy fact / motives

22.09.2001 23:51

why is it always conspiracy theory, it's a fact .

when investigating a crime the cops look for persons with a motive. Bush and his fathers CIA chums motive seems to be multiple purpose. They are accusing bin laden , although they have no real evidence. The knock on effect is that they are blaming bin laden for the collapse of the worlds economy.The anti global possee now almost officially classed as terrorists, the horrors of genova almost forgotten.
3) they have set off to bomb the shit out of some poor, half starved,afghans donkey cart . 4) tighter controls on any one who steps out of line that means protestors, anti global, environmental, what ever world wide . If they could find a way of blaming Bin Laden for Global warming they would have done a clean sweep . The biggest prize is to the arms industry
I wonder if they might have set up the hijacking and subsequent attacks.

if anyone had the stomach to watch america's corporate rock n' roll dick heads doing their thing for the nationalist war
machine, buckets of puke and the music was worse, look out for the WAR AID CD ...

den hulst

Observation

23.09.2001 00:19

It appears obvious to me that the "anti-globalization" protest movement is split right down the middle post 9-11.

steveh

Oil, Drugs and Genocide

23.09.2001 10:20

Don't forget the oil pipeline Bush & Chaney are laying in Afghanistan, which has to go through every country called 'stan' to reach the oil rich Caspian Sea, which Putin has already obliged them with, by ethnically cleansing Chechnya, after blaming Muslim Etremists for blasts in Russia, which the KGB organised. It runs deep this global 'conspiracy.'

Ras Putin

Indymedia is not a free speach site

23.09.2001 10:27

Indymedia is not free speach and neither should it be. It hovers between many worlds. Indymedia is a political project remember, not a fucking chat room.

nutternutkin

evidence it might be true in media censorship

23.09.2001 11:05

and if you dont want to believe in conspiracy look in the estabishment press. Has one column inch been presented? One mention been made on radio or tv presentations? with so many "nutters" around willing to think outside the Bush-Blair presented warmongery, you'd have thought the idea might at least have been held up for public ridicule.Perhaps it's too dangerous to mention - might just swing people away from the war effort Oh the gullibility of so many people, even those who think they're radical,questioning, anti-authoritarian, revolutionary even, but whose eyes,hearts and minds are so closed that they cant recognise a giant confidence trick pulled off right in front of them

dwight heet

response to darius

23.09.2001 11:34

i do totally agree with mr nutternutkin (?). and i think that it should be seen as such by darius. we have in darius the case of a gentleman that not only unhappy with having been welcomed here, now intends to say what this site should be like, and what should it be for. we have already discussed the issue of violence for political purposes before, and we are just at this moment in front of another case (sep, 11th 2001). and nothing else. not the number of victims, nor the objective of the action, nor anything but the action itself determines its judgement. mr darius had a very preachy, full of optimism and praise entrée the first time i read him/her here. his/her paternalistic approach to "us", as the future of something like this present but "better". darius said then that he was part of the mainstream media, and gave, to be honest to truth, interesting views on why the arms fair was not being covered. which by the way one can only understand as natural. speculating is the very sanest exercise that brought us a step forward from the rest of animalia. speculating is not to say that the americans considered in the 60's a terrorist action within their country as to justify an attack on cuba, as we all know from april with the revelation of new traces in a book, and that it came to my knowledge through a link in indymedia to the baltimore sun. having here both sides of the coin, what's factual, with what's reasonably possible, inevitably lead us to object that there must be something like what darius call conspiracy. but, darius, did you ever doubt that we do intend anything than using all possible ways to defeat capitalism? this violence, or terrorism, is not anymore than another face of the same strugle that a well documented article can express against the powers or, a very creative and quasi artistic composition of paranoia aims for. i very much regret the death of catering and cleaning staff in the towers. as for the rest of us, positions should be by now, at least, very well clear. you are with us, or you are against.

jose
mail e-mail: jesuisgil@hushmail.com

please keep on

23.09.2001 16:56

To all the professional journalists:
I ask you to continue contributing your work.
When the masses have begun to come in, this is great success, though there are some consequences...

And, eventually, we might find difficulty to maintain independent or controversial sites, facing problems with laws and business practice. Free speech has become vulnerable.

(disclaimer: [x] this is a reader's opinion)

hans

clamping down on dissent

23.09.2001 21:57

what worries me is the hysterical reaction of many when an alternative (or conspiracy) theory is advanced. I don't think anyone is saying 'I know the FBI/US military did it', just that it is an option. Why is it so outrageous to suggest that but fine to not only claim 'them Arabs' did it but to conclusively blame them despite no evidence and a campaign of mainstream media misinformation???
I'm also p****d off at the way anyone critical of the US is immediately told they don't care/have no compassion.I feel awful abuot the events in the US and I don't want then to happen again anywhere...but fact is they will keep happening for as long as the US seeks to police the world in its own interests, and retaliation of any kind will only make the problem worse.....what happened to the UN in all of this, and innocent till proven guilty?

censored?

No-Win

24.09.2001 09:32

To be Anti-American policy, is to be racist, a hate crime, now if you oppose them, you are "for terrorism."

Auntie America

Nutters

24.09.2001 10:16

Darius wants indymedia to be a forum for "independent journalists and activists". So what is his definition of "independent"? It could be argued that the very conjunction of "independent" with "journalist" and/or "activists" is an oxymoron. A communal space is by definition open to all - to police its boundaries is to privatise it. If people are sometimes receptive to conspiracy theories it is because of all the crap they are fed by supposedly "independent" journalists in the media. And if the history of the left in the twentieth century teaches us anything it is to beware of vanguard "activists" trying to tell people what they should think. There are no "independent" sources of information - selecting a particular group of facts in order to form a coherent argument is always bound up with a particular theoretical standpoint and the defence or advancement of specific material interests. An open communal space is a liberated zone in the interstices of preivatised huckstering and stae repression - it is an arena where people should feel comfortable about finding out what the underlying assumptions are which inform different viewpoints. To seek to imitate the conformity of the market and the censorship of the state is precisely what indymedia should NOT be about.

bis
mail e-mail: bis_d@yahoo.co.uk

Out of the frying pan and into the fire

24.09.2001 19:54

With it's open publishing system, indymedia is in a sort of "out of the frying pan and into the fire" situation.
Either the newswire is kept completely open - then the content is determined by the users. Often this works through a process of self-regulation. Sometimes it doesn't.
Or the imcuk collective puts it's editorial powers into work. In that case, the newswire is more concise according to the "editorial guidelines" (see on top of the page). But it means that one group determines what's news and what isn't, and some people see this as censorship.

The imcuk collective tries to find a sensible balance between frying pan and fire.
Openly racist, sexist or otherwise offensive contributions are being hidden. Indymedia uk is not a noticeboard for that kind of nonsense.
Another rule in the editorial guidelines is about the genre of reports: They should be reports of actions for social change.
But sometimes it seems necessary to allow for some debate. For example, Darius' comment does not really comply with the "editorial guidelines", yet it is an important statement. It might be better suited for the public list of imcuk, accessible through the bottom-left side list of mailing lists.

Olive

Olive

Welll ... it got a good response

27.09.2001 18:03

Actually, I am not trying to dictate what Indymedia should be for, or look like or what people should say.

I just think that making it clear that anyone can post anything on this part of the site would probably be a good idea with regards to maintaining the credibility of Indymedia per se.

Speculation or conspiricy theorising etc. is fine, but I still feel that it should be clear that anyone can post anything on this site.

It's clear soem of the posts on this strand feel that the death of rich people, like stockbrokers, is somehow more acceptable than that of cleaners and firemen. That's an interesting point for debate... but some people -- perhaps less versed in a holistic revolutionary global interpretation of events -- might find it very cold in the current circumstances. And some people might think that Indymedia as a whole is supportive of that position.

It does seem that ther are those in the globalisation movement who do not think what happened on September 11th was a complertely bad thing. That is a point of debate too... but I think that there is a risk of long-term damage to the anti-globalisation movement (or whatever you want to call it) by some more extreme voices seeming to effectively praise the attacks. It would be a shame if people who might be sympathetic to the very good aspects of anti-globalisation arguments were scared off because they thought that this movement sees mass murder as somehting laudauble.

A simple disclaimer above that part fot he site would do the trick.

db
mail e-mail: darius2001@hotmail.com