This country desperately needs an independant media. Indymedia due to it's history and position ( and the large amount of good work that it has done) IS seen by everyone i know as THE independant media source.
Yet, it is biased and in my humble opinion does not do what it could and should. It states it is an
" .. open-publishing platform for news, issues, actions and analysis reporting on grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial social justice, environmental and political issues. [and ] IMC UK is maintained by a network of media activists and groups."
Which it does, but in a biased way. And please I do not mean this in a bad or conspiratorial way.
There is a sub group of people who act as features editors. And it is they who decide what are highlighted as features, the key part of Indymedia. Everyone who logs on to IndymediaUK sees the features, while many newswire posts are not read, as they go off the page or a simply missed in the quantity of postings. It is clear this group only features some issues, and presumably the issues that matter to them or that they feel are the most important. Again i am not alleging conspiracy or evil doing.
So we have a catch 22. Indymedia is opensource and unmoderated but the KEY part, the features, are chosen by a committee.
Now it is absolutely clear that this group is open and i state again i do not see any conspiracy or badness. It works like this the features
"..are put together by volunteers communicating on the imc-uk-features list.
Any individual can join the features list and propose a new feature for the middle column. A proposal can take the form of an idea or a completed feature. Completed features are usually between 50 and 80 words and include at least one link to the newswire, preferably also links to background information. If no one objects to the feature proposal within 24-hours, and if it is completed, it will be uploaded to the middle column. The 24-hour rule ensures that everybody can contribute to the middle column and allows time for collaborative improvements and considerations."
While this is perfectly reasonable there are plenty of us who already have our plates full and do not want to take this function on.
What we want is this group to reflect more accurately the ".. grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial social justice, environmental and political issues .." struggles going on in this country. Features group please take this on board
Examples; There are currently 9 features on the home page
Free Gaza ship impounded x1
No Borders x2
Detention centre protests x2
UK Tamils protests x2
SOAS raid x1
HLS x1
Shell in Ireland x1
and the archive is little different.
Honestly does this reflect the resistance in the UK today? Why Shell in Ireland not opposition or not to the Orange Order Parades? Why a Gaza ship features not Iran protests in London? Why HLS and nothing on the struggles of the low waged in farming?
Where are the Construction workers disputes? which saw thousends of workers take unofficial and illegal secondary action blocking roads etc etc and were victorious in their dispute? Where is the feature on the Vesta workers struggle at the Wind Turbine factory in the Isle of Wight? Where is the feature on the ongoing cleaners struggles in the City? Where is the feature on the National Shop Stewards conference which recently brought hundreds of union activists together in London? Where is the feature on the recent disputes in the Universities against redundancies? And why no Climate Camp build up yet?
The list goes on but you understand my point. Struggles involving many many more thousands than those you feature, are going un-featured.
Please Indymedia .. we all need an Independant media that reflects the struggles we all face .. please reflect that in your features column. Thank you :)
by the way take a look at the Irish Indymedia which imho reflects much better a cross section of struggle
Comments
Hide the following 6 comments
Response
17.07.2009 19:06
Thats what it says on the tin:
". Indymedia UK does not attempt to take an objective and impartial standpoint: Indymedia UK clearly states its subjectivity."
Durruti: There is a sub group of people who act as features editors.
No theres an open list that anyone can join. And anyone can propose a feature.
Durruti: And it is they who decide what are highlighted as features, the key part of Indymedia.
Its the people on the list. A feature is proposed to the list, and if there is no objection is published 24 hours later.
Durruti: "It is clear this group only features some issues, and presumably the issues that matter to them or that they feel are the most important."
No - its clear that the features proposed are mainly published. Features are intended to reflect postings on the wire.
"So we have a catch 22. Indymedia is opensource and unmoderated but the KEY part, the features, are chosen by a committee."
It isn't unmoderated and there is no committee - its decided by consensus on an open list. Indymedia is open source and it is also open publishing, but there are guidleines and posts which breach guidelines may be hidden.
Durruti: What we want is this group to reflect more accurately the ".. grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial social justice, environmental and political issues .." struggles going on in this country.
And your part is to write a letter requesting this? Wouldn't it be more productive to write and propose a feature?
"Honestly does this reflect the resistance in the UK today? Why Shell in Ireland not opposition or not to the Orange Order Parades? Why a Gaza ship features not Iran protests in London? Why HLS and nothing on the struggles of the low waged in farming?"
Because those are the features that were proposed. No-one has proposed the things that aren't featured - and some of the topics have barely received posts. If it isn't posted - it isn't going to be featured.
'don't hate the media, be the media'.
IMCista
thanks IMC but don't totally agree
18.07.2009 10:20
D02 said "So we have a catch 22. Indymedia is opensource and unmoderated but the KEY part, the features, are chosen by a committee."
IMCista say "It isn't unmoderated and there is no committee - its decided by consensus on an open list. Indymedia is open source and it is also open publishing, but there are guidleines and posts which breach guidelines may be hidden."
Durruti: What we want is this group to reflect more accurately the ".. grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial social justice, environmental and political issues .." struggles going on in this country.
IMCista "And your part is to write a letter requesting this? Wouldn't it be more productive to write and propose a feature?"
D02 "Honestly does this reflect the resistance in the UK today? Why Shell in Ireland not opposition or not to the Orange Order Parades? Why a Gaza ship features not Iran protests in London? Why HLS and nothing on the struggles of the low waged in farming?"
IMCista " Because those are the features that were proposed. No-one has proposed the things that aren't featured - and some of the topics have barely received posts. If it isn't posted - it isn't going to be featured."
IMCista "'don't hate the media, be the media'."
D02 response
Thanks IMCista for your detailed response .. but i think we are both right in different ways and maybe there needs to be a new look at process to rectify this
.. it is absolutely correct, as you say, that this is an open process ( when i say committee and you say list i do not see a differrence .. one is online one is in a room ... and my comment is not weighted to suggest smokey roomed conspiracy) And you are absolutely right to think that if people want certain features they should get involved etc etc ..
but this is a classic 'tyranny of structurelessness' .. and a imho a failure to listen to so many critiques of exclusion by feminists and w/c activists for so many years now
essentially what is being said is
" ..because we do not get involved... our issues do not exist .. and so it is our fault for not getting involved .. "
do you not see the irony in this? maybe just maybe, those doing some of these issues do not have the time to get involved, or maybe they are not so PC/IM savvy or as confident as others?
and i absolutely disagree that the issues i noted have 'barely' been posted on the newswire either
while you are right to ask others to take responsibility and get themselves on the features list, maybe I am right to ask you who are already ON there to also take responsibility and not allow your issues to dominate, as they do, a media that should be for all, with the cop out of 'if no one else speaks up what are we supposed to do'
For clarification, do you as a IMCista think that the features do reflect struggle in the UK today?
I would assume you can and do not ( as they clearly do not). So i would ask you what you or IMUK is actively doing to help rectify that?
cheers again D02
D02
totally agree with this piece, well done brother
18.07.2009 11:35
bentrad
please feature unwritten content, kthxby
19.07.2009 19:33
I'd like to read it. Not something that *I* can write though. Anyone else?
CH
Safely criticising power in the media
20.07.2009 12:27
You can criticise the abuse of power in Iran in US and European corporate press, because the Iranian state is an enemy of our state. I could write a truthful comment about the real evils of the governments of Korea, Syria, Venezuala, etc, and get it published for cash or get offered a career. Criticising our governments friends is 'less news worthy' though, rarely getting mainstream coverage, and never with the hyperbole and emotional manipulation but instead infused with caveats, disclaimers and every other sort of excuse. There is no sense of shame there at the obvious hypocracy, so there is no use appealling to decency. The best approach that I've heard of was Chomskys in the movie Manufacturing Consent, where he was comparing the massive media coverage of the Cambodia genocide, with the minimal coverage of the Indonesian genocide. The key difference being the Indonesian war-crimes were being perpetrated by what was already identified as an US client-state, whereas US and UK involvement in Cambodia was at that time hidden. They illustrated this bias visually by rolling out comparitve lengths of blank newspaper roll. Such obvious bias in the media can therefore illustrate the true nature of power structures so that anyone can understand it in retrospect. It would be interesting to see a similar display of newspaper roll for the last Iranian election and the last Egyptian election. Journalist courses should include a comparison of the coverage of the US invasion of Afghanistan compared the coverage of the USSRs defeat there.
If I have a minor disagreement with a newspaper report on their comments section, they will probably publish it. If I criticise in depth or with evidence the newspapers bias, editorial policy, ownership they will probably hide that, basically to protect themselves as a group.
This lack of self criticism unfortunately extends to independent media groups.
The BBC is the worlds oldest living exponent of propaganda, and I couldn't post that as a comment on a BBC site meaningfully, without being either hidden or mocked. As more news sites censor and close or cut back, it is good to have Indymedia as one place I can say that. I appreciate that and so I appreciate the collectives 'self-preservation' tactics.
However, where do I post when I want to criticise Jane Tallents or Indymedia admins like CH? I believe I have valid criticisms, often constructive criticisms, but the IM collective act in exactly the same manner as any other power structure does. It feels like more of a betrayal when IMCs act in this manner than BBC employees, in the same way it is more heinous when we recognise bias in BBC reports than Fox reports. This 'wall of silence' also serves as camouflage for infiltrators.
Danny
Re: D02
22.07.2009 13:51
"when i say committee and you say list i do not see a differrence .. one is online one is in a room ... "
You are confusing hierarchical and non-hierarchical organisations here. A committee is an elite section of a hierarchical organisation who make decisions whilst excluding the rest of the organisation.
Any person who is a member of any of the UK Indymedia collectives can participate in the consensual decision making process with regards to moderation and features and process.
To become a member of an Indymedia collective you need to get in touch with your local collective and ask if you can participate. Chances are you will be invited to a meeting and to participate, and you will be accepted into the collective after a period of time when people have got to know and trust you.
If you are going to make claims about a 'tyranny of structurelessness' then I think you should A.) provide some concrete example and B.) provide an example of how processes could be improved. Given that in this post you seem to not understand how Indymedia works, it would be a good idea to read these pages to find out more:-
Note that this link is also accessible through the front page of the Indymedia website through the "process" link.
You said:-
""imho a failure to listen to so many critiques of exclusion by feminists and w/c activists for so many years now. Essentially what is being said is " ..because we do not get involved... our issues do not exist .. and so it is our fault for not getting involved .. " do you not see the irony in this? maybe just maybe, those doing some of these issues do not have the time to get involved, or maybe they are not so PC/IM savvy or as confident as others? ""
Okay, what you are suggesting is that people who are already overstretched in committment should somehow commit themselves even further to try and cover subjects which they are not even experts in (such as low paid farm workers). Do you not see the irony in this? No one has said your issue does not exist, or that you are to blame for the lack of coverage, or that we do not care about issues you care about. It is just that we are not superhuman.
You have also touched on another integral argument here regarding Indymedia: Should Indymedia be written by non-activists for activists, or should it be written by activists for activists? I believe in the latter approach. The idea that people not grounded in any kind of activism are supposed to report other peoples news and speak on their behalf is completely against what we stand for.
Please solve these problems by writing as many features as you can which adhere to the editorial guidelines which have been consensually agreed. Really, it is an extreme rarity for a feature to be denied publication.
IMCista 2