[IMC-bristol] editorial questions and responsibilities

[Ecovillage Network UK]

--=======2983B45=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-511F54C6; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Ian,

How can you accuse me of not getting back to you? You left me an 
answerphone message about the cube screening (when you didn't show up) 
which I replied to but never got a reply from you - I also asked you what 
happened that night on email but never got any reply. Thankfully I got a 
message from you on my answerphone this morning which I'll reply to in a 
minute. Being ill is no reason for what happened at the cube when 30-40 
people turned up to find there was nothing to watch. You could have called 
them or me - or anyone.

I'm not angry - just really disappointed with your editorial stewardship of 
the Bristol IMC site.

Let's get this straight. You didn't condense the Fairford piece Ian, you 
replaced it with an inaccurate triumphalist rant. Keeping one quote about 
the song they were singing removing the quote from the Gloucs weapons 
inspectors and distorting what actually happened on the day - boosting 
numbers etc. (as well, admittedly, as adding some useful info about the 
fence being broken into). I knew it was you who'd done it and I took it as 
a personal attack by Bristol's self-styled Indymedia editor on my work.

When I've spent 2 hours writing up a stressful story which is then removed 
it is a very good way to ensure I don't contribute again.

Every single centre piece I put up got abuse from you as you remember. 
Saying that bristol IMC was just a front for Bristol Stop the War because 
of the prominence of the Fairford story. Just mean. The editorial line of 
most of the stuff you've been doing since will find little or no resonance 
in the community but that doesn't appear to bother you. Several months on 
now and the Bristol IMC site has heavily featured The Bristolian election 
campaigns. And still pretends to be non- party political- - it's becoming a 
parody of itself.  It's become the very 'activist' ghetto it was supposed 
not to be.

I have absolutely no intention of contributing if my work is simply going 
to be lacerated.  I had subbed middle column pieces once or twice. But 
NEVER detracted anything from the content of a piece.

There is also a new policy of not having 'read more' sections from the 
centre page - this ensures that anyone who wants to point out factual 
inaccuracies or add useful info to your work can't - insulating you from 
criticism and totally against the spirit of the site.

Unless there are guarantees of
1. my copy not being torn to shreds
2. features being posted as newswire stories and linked from the centre 
column - so readers can comment

I see no purpose in contributing to Bristol IMC anymore.

Your assertion that I should be grateful that none of my pieces have been 
removed from the newswire is both laughable and sinister.

Anyway - I thought I deserved a right of reply since there were so many 
points in your reply I disagreed with - - feel free to reply to this on the 
list Ian but that's my last word on this subject.  We'll have a cup of tea 
and a chat eh?  And I for one will spare everyone any more online 
disagreements .


Tony
0117 944 6219

At 20:03 14/02/03 +0000, you wrote:

>At 15:22 2/14/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>>You still haven't explained why I have been removed as an IMC administrator.
>
>
>You were removed as an administrator in the summer as you weren't 
>filtering the e-mails and hence not doing the job of administrator.  It 
>took you till JANUARY to realise that you've been removed.  Need I say 
>anymore? Flaco complained about this as well b4 he left town - which is 
>why i was asked to help out (along with Joey).
>
>No Passwords have been changed - if you want to go back on as an 
>Administrator then i'll happily go along with the consensus decision 
>regarding this.  But frankly if you're not gonna  do the job then what's 
>the point?  I have no real want for doing this tedious role (filtering 
>20-30 daily spams by hand is such a laugh) but somebody has to do it...A 
>huge back log quickly bulids up if it doesn't get done and important 
>message can easily get buried amongst the multiple requests to Invest 
>$20,000,000 for a deposed Lagos President or advertisements for penis 
>enlarging kits.
>
>You also agreed that you were gonna put up one middle column feature a 
>week to help take the load of me.  Again you haven't done any since around 
>October.  Again I've been doing the middle column all by myself.  Which is 
>a situation that I raised back in the summer...Now I don't have a problem 
>with that - you have your reasons for not doing this.  Heck i've lunched 
>out enough recently as you all well know...so who am I to talk about 
>commitment?  After all this is a voluntary run thang.  I can't force you 
>to take a more proactive role Tony. The way I see it is you either do it 
>or ya don't. Pure and simple.
>
>
>
>>Neither why you removed my centre page article on the evening of the 
>>first Fairford demo.
>
>
>I condensed two Fairford pieces (1 old + 1 current ) into one middle 
>column feature as you fully know. Nothing of yours has ever been removed 
>from the news wire to my knowledge. Did we not talk about this adequately 
>b4 christmas at the cube? I thought we had...  You still seem 
>aggrieved  But your aggressive accusations of censorship (which you 
>flagged up into the middle column ) were slightly misplaced and a little 
>OTT i thought considering that you've removed  out of date features from 
>the middle column as well ( a practice I think that should be avoided (in 
>hindsight) because of archiving etc)  Misunderstandings such as this can 
>easily be solved by a little dialogue don't you think?
>
>It seems that we need to have a session about middle column 
>protocol/etiquette in order to avoid any further problems...
>
>Originally important decisions were made about the middle column protocol 
>when the site was set up back in Nov2001.  These decisions were made by 
>consensus.   If I remember correctly you weren't involved in BIMC at that 
>time.  Now I've tried to stick by this as best as I can - in fact there 
>hasn't been any complaints about the middle column content to my knowledge 
>(apart from your Fairford censorship allegations) .  I've said it b4 and 
>i'll say it again, If these middle column editorial decisions need 
>altering ( as often things do from time to time, new people coming on 
>board etc) then lets discuss them at a meeting and vote on it.  That's the 
>way all decisions have been made so far.
>
>
>
>>You are not replying to my questions by telephone or email - hence this 
>>post to the list.
>
>
>
>
>I've been ill since just after christmas Tony. I thought you knew this. 
>mibbee not. But i haven't had any phone calls from you ...although I have 
>left messages for you!  sigh
>
>I'm not gonna get into a flame session Tony which is what I think your 
>trying to provoke. They generally serve no purpose. If you want to speak 
>further about this and other stuff then lets get together over a nice cup 
>of tea and do so.
>
>By the way is anybody planning on going to Lancaster next weekend for the 
>indymedia moot? do you wanna run a car up Tony? I'm up for it...can we 
>take petrol money out of the kitty for this?
>
>
>cheerz
>ian
>[07817-953579]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.445 / Virus Database: 250 - Release Date: 21/01/03

Bristol branch - National Union of Journalists
10-12 Picton Street
Montpelier
BRISTOL
BS6 5QA
http://lists.southspace.net/listinfo/nuj_bristol/
http://www.gn.apc.org/media/nuj.html
http://www.nuj.org.uk
0117 944 6219

--=======2983B45=======--