Indymedia being subverted by censors
Blue Pencil | 02.11.2009 21:35 | Liverpool | World
The open newswire is being subverted by people who do not wish to adhere to the ethos of Independent and Open Media. This reduces the value of an Independent media to little more than the plaything of vested interests.
Several times recently, I have read genuinely interesting, coherent articles that have been censored. There is not an overwhelming problem for the dedicated Indymedia reader to find such things. However, for the less than dedicated, this can mean the difference between reading something and never even hearing about it.
Primarily, the censored articles begin life as something not exactly brimming with extreme sentiments. In many ways they are fairly representative of mainstream society. What they do lack is distribution through mainstream media. For this reason the authors generally suppose that Indymedia is a legitimate outlet. The article will usually present an argument against some received wisdom of a single issue group.
This generally results in the hiding of comments that might give support to the original article. Finally the whole article is hidden. The entire process happens quickly and without consulting the audience. Realistically, this goes against the notion that "open publishing is like open software". It makes superb rhetoric but results in the marginalisation of those who are not quite mainstream and not quite commited activists.
In general the idea of Indymedia is not to promote the sectional views of a single issue cause. Yet this is what is happening. Debate, in the sense of ideas moving backwards and forwards, is stifled by the quick, efficient and one sided action of single issue activists who know the Indymedia System and know how to get articles and comments hidden or removed. It means that, far from being an independent outlet, Indymedia becomes a way of manipulating the reader.
Which places all radical online thinking back where it started in 1998: without a effective and clear voice. Fundamentally, it harms anybody who wishes to work for any kind of social justice when posts about a contentious issue are hidden. There is no public discussion and - quite successfully - the entire process is manipulated by the same people. Repeatedly.
At the risk of being a non-news item that is removed because it breaches guidelines that not all contributors know about there are some links attached. Should it be decided that this article is not news then it will be hidden. At which point it is news because it is censored for saying that censorship is being practiced at Indymedia.
If someone has the right to have articles hidden then surely they have the duty to defend their decision. That might reveal that, far from being non-hierarchical and inclusive, there are certain practices that are both authoritarian and prevent the reader from making up their own mind about an article. The open publishing article cited below say readers are "intelligent" and able to "decide for themselves". Yet, repeatedly Readers are "protected" from controversial opinions because there are those with an awareness of the processes and procedures that have a specific agenda of their own.
Far from protecting or promoting independent or radical thought, Indymedia is becoming a way of manipulating people. Little more than a means to divide and rule by placing each post into a hierarchical pigeonhole. Preventing excessive or critical response to pet projects while hiding wider participants. In short, Indymedia has become exactly the same as the mainstream media.
There are several articles that will never be written - despite there being potential contributors ready, able and willing to do so. Quite simply because they will be censored out of useful existence. Indymedia has become the trawling ground for journalists to pick up free research material about the next big outrage from whichever group they wish to demonise next.
In short, Indymedia has been manipulated into becoming a low cost news feed for the mainstream media. This will suit those with a clear and single issue to communicate but ends a clear and powerful outlet for genuinely radical analysis or difficult news.
The immediate response this article should be seen in the context of several hidden articles that the reader is invited to find. Not only because of the educational value of learning to use Indymedia more effectively but also because it gives a clear idea of what the mechanism of censorship is for those who can manipulate the system.
http://web.archive.org/web/20061115201642/http://www.cat.org.au/maffew/cat/openpub.html
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-moderation/
Primarily, the censored articles begin life as something not exactly brimming with extreme sentiments. In many ways they are fairly representative of mainstream society. What they do lack is distribution through mainstream media. For this reason the authors generally suppose that Indymedia is a legitimate outlet. The article will usually present an argument against some received wisdom of a single issue group.
This generally results in the hiding of comments that might give support to the original article. Finally the whole article is hidden. The entire process happens quickly and without consulting the audience. Realistically, this goes against the notion that "open publishing is like open software". It makes superb rhetoric but results in the marginalisation of those who are not quite mainstream and not quite commited activists.
In general the idea of Indymedia is not to promote the sectional views of a single issue cause. Yet this is what is happening. Debate, in the sense of ideas moving backwards and forwards, is stifled by the quick, efficient and one sided action of single issue activists who know the Indymedia System and know how to get articles and comments hidden or removed. It means that, far from being an independent outlet, Indymedia becomes a way of manipulating the reader.
Which places all radical online thinking back where it started in 1998: without a effective and clear voice. Fundamentally, it harms anybody who wishes to work for any kind of social justice when posts about a contentious issue are hidden. There is no public discussion and - quite successfully - the entire process is manipulated by the same people. Repeatedly.
At the risk of being a non-news item that is removed because it breaches guidelines that not all contributors know about there are some links attached. Should it be decided that this article is not news then it will be hidden. At which point it is news because it is censored for saying that censorship is being practiced at Indymedia.
If someone has the right to have articles hidden then surely they have the duty to defend their decision. That might reveal that, far from being non-hierarchical and inclusive, there are certain practices that are both authoritarian and prevent the reader from making up their own mind about an article. The open publishing article cited below say readers are "intelligent" and able to "decide for themselves". Yet, repeatedly Readers are "protected" from controversial opinions because there are those with an awareness of the processes and procedures that have a specific agenda of their own.
Far from protecting or promoting independent or radical thought, Indymedia is becoming a way of manipulating people. Little more than a means to divide and rule by placing each post into a hierarchical pigeonhole. Preventing excessive or critical response to pet projects while hiding wider participants. In short, Indymedia has become exactly the same as the mainstream media.
There are several articles that will never be written - despite there being potential contributors ready, able and willing to do so. Quite simply because they will be censored out of useful existence. Indymedia has become the trawling ground for journalists to pick up free research material about the next big outrage from whichever group they wish to demonise next.
In short, Indymedia has been manipulated into becoming a low cost news feed for the mainstream media. This will suit those with a clear and single issue to communicate but ends a clear and powerful outlet for genuinely radical analysis or difficult news.
The immediate response this article should be seen in the context of several hidden articles that the reader is invited to find. Not only because of the educational value of learning to use Indymedia more effectively but also because it gives a clear idea of what the mechanism of censorship is for those who can manipulate the system.
http://web.archive.org/web/20061115201642/http://www.cat.org.au/maffew/cat/openpub.html http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-moderation/
Blue Pencil