The IMC censorship debate rages on

Thomas J | 13.08.2002 20:31

There is a major debate amongst IMC-UK users on what should and should not be on the UK IndyMedia newswire.

There is a current debate over what should and should not be hidden from the IMC-UK newswire. There is a current editorial policy that removes posts for the following reasons:

Discrimination: posts intending to oppress - using language, imagery, or other forms of communication which promote racism, fascism, xenophobia, sexism, or any other form of discrimination.

Advertising: posts which are personally or product promotional in nature.

Infactual: posts which are obviously infactual or misleading.
Repeated posting: if contribution is reposted or text that was originally a comment was posted as a report

It's the reasons of 'discrimination' and 'infactual' that tend to be the most controversial. Some defination on the term 'discrimatory' is needed, cause practically all articles discrimate against one group or another, be it capitalists, fascists, Zionists, religous fundimentalists, and so on.

How much should be allowed before someone says "Enough"? Some have argued in the past that the IMC newswire should be left uncensored since censorship would lead to a politcal bias and it would cease to be "independent media". Other argue that there is no place on Indymedia for hateful views such as fascism, neo-Nazism, racism, etc.

Another problem is people who have started to spam the Indymedia for their own dubious motives, such as Jean's "Heinzreport" postings, which have annoyed many. Another problem area is what to do with conspiriacy theories, since many such theories have turned out to be true in the past, such as the US presidential election, however, anyone can make a conspiriacy theory on anything, without a grain of fact.

What's to be done? Many people have come out with their own views on this issue many times, myself included, however the current problem has not been solved, and a open debate is needed on this sensitive topic. Many articles have been hidden in the past because people found them offensive, and the authors cried foul. A recent example was hidden after three reposts, and when I e-mailed the person (I was not the author of the article) regarding why the article was removed, the reply was "maybe it shoudn't be removed", so even amongst the editorial team there is a debate over what should and should not be on the newswire.

Thomas J

Comments

Hide 2 hidden comments or hide all comments

Some ideas..

13.08.2002 22:24

This was a contentious topic at the first meeting of IMC Scotland a few weeks ago.

A suggestion I liked was to put articles that were considered offensive in a different section. I think this is a good idea, as then people can be warned that they might be upset/angered by articles within. 'Offensive' means such different things to different people that I can't see how an editorial group can ever keep everyone happy.

Also, articles that are not news, or are promotional for consumer products or political parties etc. could be put in separate sections, with links to them, in the same way.

This way nothing is deleted, but irrelevant articles don't clog up the main pages of the website.

Cake

curiously some things stay online

13.08.2002 22:56

3 posts from the 'bible believers' website stay up for cosideration although this right wing fundamentalist christian outfit pushes a genuinely racist tack. It's quite easy to discriminate the bad from the good information if you have some discernment, but these posts just seek to tar all conspiracy theorists with the same brush

Don't be fooled

14.08.2002 01:18

There is no major debate concerning censorship, except that Thomas J has appointed himself "thought policeman" on Indy, determining from his own shallow mind and perspective what is acceptable, to him.

Illuminatty Dread

Thought policeman? I don't think so

14.08.2002 02:26

dh: I have tried to avoid tarring all conspiracy theorists with the same brush, particularly after the last debate we had. It however needs to be highlighted that you cannot believe everthing you read, and if every person posted his or her strange ideas, Indymedia would lose its credibility as an alternative information source.

"Illumatty dread": What's this about me "determining from his own shallow mind what's acceptable"? RU saying that I cannot have my opinion on what should be on Indymedia? Is everyone who posts their opinion on what they want on here just a thought policeman, as you so inaccuratly describe me?

The 'debate' is that some of the regular IMC posters argure that certain offensive views, such as those of fascists, to be removed from the newswire, whilst other argue that this equates to fascism in itself. Anyway, the current situation isn't very clear on what can be on the Indymedia, and all this post intended to do was generate debate and ideas. Sorry if that offends anyone, but last I looked, it was a free country, right?

Thomas J

Tricky one...

14.08.2002 04:34

One man's fact is another man's conspiracy theory. And you are what you eat.
A fact that I may have thought whacko five years ago I may consider perfectly reasonable today and this would probably be, in no small part, due to the type of input I have selected for myself over that time. It's not a perfect world(!) and, whilst this is surely a point worthy of debate, we should be a little tolerant of editorial efforts to streamline and filter to some extent. It takes time to trawl through endless crap posts and compromises are inevitable. I'm just glad I am not making the decisions!

paul
mail e-mail: paul@pinny.eurobell.co.uk

Thomas J you get very boring...

14.08.2002 08:56

>The 'debate' is that some of the regular IMC posters argure that certain offensive views, such as those of fascists, to be removed from the newswire, whilst other argue that this equates to fascism in itself.

The only people who argue that hiding fascist postings are the fascists themselves, like Mike from Essex.

And what are you talking about, IMC doesn't have a political bias?!?! IMC is a media tool for radical social change. It has no pretense of being "impartial" or "unbiased".

>Anyway, the current situation isn't very clear on what can be on the Indymedia, and all this post intended to do was generate debate and ideas. Sorry if that offends anyone, but last I looked, it was a free country, right?

No. I believe that this post is to fuel your megalomania. You keep posting and RE-posting stories on this same subject. If you want to get involved with IMC, GET INVOLVED WITH THE FUCKING EDITORIAL TEAM! If not, shut the fuck up and stop filling up the newswire with your self-indulgent bullshit.

Thank you.

rednblack

Re: hidden posting you mention

14.08.2002 09:02

"A recent example was hidden after three reposts, and when I e-mailed the person (I was not the author of the article) regarding why the article was removed, the reply was "maybe it shoudn't be removed", so even amongst the editorial team there is a debate over what should and should not be on the newswire."

That particular posting was put up by a known BNP sympathiser - if not member - and had content which clearly violated the editorial guidlines by discriminating against non-"native Britons", whatever the fuck that means.

indymedia is not a resource for the spreading of racist hate.

George's Bush

anti censorship

14.08.2002 09:04

I would be anti censorship of any form on this site at it would seriousely undermine its 'independant' nature. However I think CAKES sugestion of having different sections were material that might be considered offensive or promotional could be filed is excellent. It would mean that people could obtain the type of information they were after alot quicker, (i.e. no junk to sift through) whislt also allowing everyones opinion to be voiced. I can see that what people consider as offenive or promotional is very subjective, ohh dear I see another debate on teh horizon....

anon

Proposed 'solution'

14.08.2002 11:53

The newswire should be for news.
Anything else should be removed.

There is already a facility for announcing events
but I can see that there is some justification for cross over in some cases.

Debate/discussion/rants etc simply should not be on the newswire - whatever their political slant. It is fine (great infact) that people can comment on news posts on the newswire but comment should not be tolerated as a 'root' thread in the newswire.

I sugest that introducing unmoderating debating forums as part of Indymedia would be a good way forward. News items could link to approbriate discussion threads and NO comment/opinion would be allowed in the newswire.

This should be pretty simply to impliment with the existing system.

I'd love to see the Indymedia newswires live up to potential and for it to do so we need to find a way to loose the clutter.

Stuff like control of accidental duplicate posting could be automated and that would help to reduce clutter.

Some editorial policy on what is relevent news for local/regional IMCs might be useful also.

Ben

ben

Racism

14.08.2002 13:21

Indymedia does have unequivocal editorial guidelines on racism, sexism, homophobia and other prejudices. The reason why many are not taken down sooner is because the editorial team does not spot them. It's therefore up to those using Indymedia to inform the editorial team of postings that contravene the editorial guidelines. You can do this by writing to

imc-uk-contact@lists.indymedia.org

Dan

It has all become clear now

14.08.2002 13:29

Having just read the mission statement, it is now clear that Indymedia was never meant to be the free-for-all that I initally thought. Read this (link at the end of this comment) and you will find a good reason why articles about fascists, Zionist extremeists, etc, are hidden, since their despicable views are not what IndyMedia is about. (Maybe I should have read tit before posting this, oh well!)

However, "anon" and "Cake"'s ideas of catergorising the articles are very good, since some articles on the newswire are more important to some people than others. Ben's seperate discussion board is also a good idea, since it can keep the newswire for posting news on.

Finally, Rednblack, what's your problem? I do not keep "posting and reposting" articles on the same subject, I have only posted one other on this subject recently. And what's this about this post only serving to fuel my meglalomaina? Bullshit! Even if I was that way inclined, what could I alone do on this site? Eh? It's all very well saying that I should get involved in the editorial team, but I am studying at University for a degree, and therefore am very busy. What do YOU do?

Thomas J
Homepage: http://uk.indymedia.org/ms.php3

There is no such thing as "unbiased"

14.08.2002 14:06

It is almost a commonplace in media-studies that no newspaper or other outlet is free from bias; the very notion of an editor implies selectivity, and therefore the only question remaining is what to permit, and what to delete.
i have always felt that for IMC to stick to demo reports alone is a little too narrow, one complication being that Britain has had a long history of too few, lacklustre demos which fail to get anywhere. This means the debate about the political situation needs more airing, a debate in which IMC could assist. Equally, commonsense guidelines about restricting gratuitous nonsense, facsistic rantings, and irrrelevant 'spammings' must still apply.
One mistake would be for IMC to get into the "balance" mentality, as exemplified by the BBC. For years the BBC told us they were unbiased, and we believed them, when in fact this artifice, this construction is a more subtle form of propaganda, being used very much in the Israeli issue (John Pilger writes in-depth about this)

Space-Trotskyist

Indymedia- 7 out of 10 cats preferred it

14.08.2002 15:23

I like the ideas about categorising postings and separate debate boards (perfect for debates like this). It would make the site a lot easier to navigate and for people to find their particular flavour of article.
I can see that it could lead to a lot of division if the categories were to be based on political angles though.
How about a newswire for coverage of actual events, a section for people to highlight worthy causes, a section for political ranting, a section for posters and illustrations etc. etc.

Just an idea. I'm sure the editors will point out that it would involve far too much work.

Pleb

Insanity of Indymedia censorship

14.08.2002 19:24

Qoute ' The only people who argue that hiding fascist postings are the fascists themselves, like Mike from Essex. '

I sit here and read these post with some amusement. Mainly that stemming from the fact that certain Left wingers on Indymedia.org.uk have labelled me a fascist.
To put it quite clearly, I am Vehemently opposed to marxist, communist and general socialist political stances, and when compared to these, my political opinions are certainly more to the right. However I am certainly not a fascist and object to that 'label'.

As I've said before thou, it seems that anyone to the right on new labour is branded a nazi by the vast majority of indymedia posters.

Continuing to censor my newswire posts, nearly all of which are backed with researched FACT, just demostrates your afraid of letting people see an alternative view.

The only fascist stuff I've seen on here was a load of anti semetism from some crazy religious poster saying the jews were evil as it says so in the bible....

mike
mail e-mail: mjpann@essex.ac.uk

Mike's views...

14.08.2002 20:09

...whilst not being truly fascist, are definately right-wing and bigoted, and tend to contravene what Indymedia was set up for and what most users believe in.

As Space-Trotskyist said, there is no such thing as an unbiased source, and if people want to look at bigoted, warped views, there are other sources (including the Daily Mail) that they can use. I doubt that the majority of Indymedia users hold such views, but what do I know?

Thomas J

daily mail is warped

15.08.2002 00:04

The daily mail is a middle class tory wives paper, with a few blue rinse brigade supporters.... (might as well stick to my sterotypes :P )

All news media is warped to some degree by the political ideologies of the journalists and editors, thou as you are probable aware my posts are mainly from the BBC, The Times etc, and in my opinion thats less biased then most other news sources, and certainly couldnt be called 'fascist press'

mike
mail e-mail: mjpann@essex.ac.uk

No but facts can be twisted

15.08.2002 00:47

You will also be aware that facts can be used out of context, to support a 'warped' view. A recent example is a posting which used quotes from Jewish holy scripture to justify anti-Semitism. Your recent posting was twisting facts to justify your bigoted views.

I don't intened to try and dictate what can and cannot be posted on Indymedia, with all the accustions that have been aimed at me so far, but bigoted, xenophobic views that encourage predujice are not welcome here, there are sites where they are, so there is no excuse for allowing such filth on here.

Last thing, you surprise me Mike with your attacking of the Daily Mail, I'd have though a right wing Tory paper would be right up you alley! But I suppose it's too mild even for the likes of bigots like you, "Spearhead" would be more your thing...

Thomas J

Originality

15.08.2002 09:35

Mike: The second-most irritating posts on Indymedia after racist rants is re-posting stuff from the mainstream media. Probably 90 per cent of regular Indymedia users also check out news on the BBC, Guardian, etc, websites, so there is no need to report these articles. I would argue that these are a prime target for culling. This is not censorship, since the articles are already in the public domain.
So, PLEASE, don't keep reposting stuff we've already read - post news that you've written or that most people may not ordinarily pick up in their daily browse through mainstream media websites. And make sure it's not simply opinion, but is actually informative and relevant to the whole aims and beliefs of Indymedia. If you don't like commies and lefties and immigrants, then maybe this isn't the place for you.

Dan

Waffle

15.08.2002 16:24

I dont like the daily mail as its pro censorship.

I was saying that i was using LINKS (eg URLS) to bbc and times pages when i was discussing something and needed to draw reference to the source of a fact within my comment, i wasnt reposting whole or even partial articles... which is quite clear if you actually read my postings DAN as opposed to just ranting about nothing.

Mike
mail e-mail: mjpann@essex.ac.uk

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

One is DELETED by 'Daithi' - IMC Ireland for any Article criticising editors

04.05.2006 02:07

It it usually easy for a writer to write the editorial page of a Commercial newspaper and have a critique of the paper's editorial actions Published there - and usually get an answer.

However on Ireland Indymedia which is happy host criticism of the Iraq War - but which most often CENSORS any commentary criticism of either reprehensible Israeli Actions or the behaviour of Ireland IMC 'editors' - one will find themselves DELETED and otherwise Censored by Ireland Indymedia 'editors' such as 'Daithi' .

This Censorship will be ESPECIALLY of anyone who is articulate and cogent in his description critical of editorial remarks or actions. ON the other hand - these disingenuous disinformation types - will leave undeleted any obviously vulgar and inept criticism of 'editors' however full of obscene language - Because obviously it makes them look forebearing and 'tolerant' .

The fact is that a Large portion of western Indymedia is run by covert Hasbara editorial types that will Not Permit an OPEN News Wire Published discussion of Indymedia editorial censor ship issues - or criticisms especially concerning ISRAEL : because they fear the truth of them. PC Hennedy

gordonmark1632@yahoo.com

PC Hennedy
mail e-mail: gordonmark1632@yahoo.com
Homepage: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

One is DELETED by 'Daithi' - IMC Ireland for any Article criticising editors

04.05.2006 02:10

It is usually easy for a writer to write the editorial page of a Commercial newspaper and have a critique of the paper's editorial actions Published there - and usually get an answer.

However on Ireland Indymedia which is happy host criticism of the Iraq War - but which most often CENSORS any commentary criticism of either reprehensible Israeli Actions or the behaviour of Ireland IMC 'editors' - one will find themselves DELETED and otherwise Censored by Ireland Indymedia 'editors' such as 'Daithi' .

This Censorship will be ESPECIALLY of anyone who is articulate and cogent in his description critical of editorial remarks or actions. ON the other hand - these disingenuous disinformation types - will leave undeleted any obviously vulgar and inept criticism of 'editors' however full of obscene language - Because obviously it makes them look forebearing and 'tolerant' .

The fact is that a Large portion of western Indymedia is run by covert Hasbara editorial types that will Not Permit an OPEN News Wire Published discussion of Indymedia editorial censor ship issues - or criticisms especially concerning ISRAEL : because they fear the truth of them. PC Hennedy

gordonmark1632@yahoo.com

pchennedy

Hide 2 hidden comments or hide all comments