An article posted on the IMC-Prague web site accused the IMC - UK site of censoring articles which were critical of the Labour Party. IMC - UK has defended its censorship on the grounds that the main site is dedicated news about protests and activism. Yet under its guidelines about posting it asks people NOT to post announcements about specific protests. The policy is not clear.
The problem seems to be that someone at IMC - UK is making editorial decisions which are contrary to the spirit of an open medium. If a group of individuals, or a self-appointed elite, has decided what constitutes news, or what does not constitute news, then the dividing line between a genuinely democratic medium and a controlled medium becomes blurred.
Recently Tony Blair spoke before House of Commons to defend the new budget allocated to sustain the Monarchy. If an interested poster decides to present various facts and observations concerning Blair's speech, and if in the course of this speech the author "editorializes" about Blair's stance, what is IMC - UK to do? Do not people at IMC - UK understand that EVERY news item contains a degree of editorializing, that no "news story" is perfectly objective? The attempt to divide posts between those which are "straight news" and those which are "editorials" is fated to destroy the notion of independent media. The power belongs to the people. WE ARE THE MEDIA. While attempts to organize a media center are laudable, there is no need to censor based on content, or to relegate certain stories to back channels, based on content.
You might be tempted to take this post down from the main page, or to relegate it to subsidiary page. But on what basis? This post IS NEWS. It is as much news as any account of any politician's speech, or as any account of a protest action, or as much as the annoucement of a new policy for editing IMC copy.
If you take it down, you are just as guilty of censorship as the mainstream media. If you take it down, you are just as guilty of censorship as Pacifica Radio, which also censors reporters who criticize the official line and policy of the station. If you take this post down, then you as guilty as the government officials, the advertisers, the transnational corporations, and the members of the military establishment, which act to obstruct the free flow of information, especially when that information reflects badly on the nature of their institution. If you allow people to post what they will then you will be fulfilling the demands of those who are struggling to create a genuinely democratic medium.
D.L.
The problem seems to be that someone at IMC - UK is making editorial decisions which are contrary to the spirit of an open medium. If a group of individuals, or a self-appointed elite, has decided what constitutes news, or what does not constitute news, then the dividing line between a genuinely democratic medium and a controlled medium becomes blurred.
Recently Tony Blair spoke before House of Commons to defend the new budget allocated to sustain the Monarchy. If an interested poster decides to present various facts and observations concerning Blair's speech, and if in the course of this speech the author "editorializes" about Blair's stance, what is IMC - UK to do? Do not people at IMC - UK understand that EVERY news item contains a degree of editorializing, that no "news story" is perfectly objective? The attempt to divide posts between those which are "straight news" and those which are "editorials" is fated to destroy the notion of independent media. The power belongs to the people. WE ARE THE MEDIA. While attempts to organize a media center are laudable, there is no need to censor based on content, or to relegate certain stories to back channels, based on content.
You might be tempted to take this post down from the main page, or to relegate it to subsidiary page. But on what basis? This post IS NEWS. It is as much news as any account of any politician's speech, or as any account of a protest action, or as much as the annoucement of a new policy for editing IMC copy.
If you take it down, you are just as guilty of censorship as the mainstream media. If you take it down, you are just as guilty of censorship as Pacifica Radio, which also censors reporters who criticize the official line and policy of the station. If you take this post down, then you as guilty as the government officials, the advertisers, the transnational corporations, and the members of the military establishment, which act to obstruct the free flow of information, especially when that information reflects badly on the nature of their institution. If you allow people to post what they will then you will be fulfilling the demands of those who are struggling to create a genuinely democratic medium.
D.L.
e-mail:
Comments
Display the following 8 comments