[CIMC-working] ignore previous, Channel11/CMWG endorsement

[Garth Liebhaber]

hey all,
    let me clarify on the Channel 11/ CMWG proposal draft.  I think I used 
too many pronouns.  I don't know the history of the relationships with 
channel 11 and progressive media folk around Chicago, more so particularly 
the folks listed as present or potential endorsers, some of which are not 
media groups but issue related groups.
    One concern of mine is that the CMWG has decided upon a time and place 
for a meeting without consulting the other party.  It seems rather arrogant 
and, at least, a blunder in diplomacy.  Related to this is that the tone of 
language comes across to me as obnoxiously demanding in a way that to me 
seems counterproductive.  It's missing common courtesy.  If I were in 
Channel 11's shoes, my reaction would be "whatever, I've got enough problems 
to deal with, these guys don't care about my problems, I think I'll ignore 
them."
    I think a better response would be to act in a more 'professional' 
manner, reflective of the skills and qualities we posess.  "Channel 11, we 
are media involved people and with a constituency of endorsing groups, we 
would like to address your lack of coverage on the war with Iraq..."
    Be clear that I am not in support of a "toned down wimpy approach" that 
accepts the bullshit of why nothing can be changed.  What I am in support of 
is an intelligent method of approach that is remarkably similar to a well 
played game of chess (or euchre).
    These are my sticking points for an endorsement.  If we do put 
endorsements on anything, it should be very strongly relevant to our 
mission.  I hope this clarifies my thoughts, Garth


 	 	From: Mitchell Szczepanczyk <msszczep@midway.uchicago.edu>
To: Garth Liebhaber <garthliebhaber@hotmail.com>
CC: imc-chicago-working@indymedia.org
Subject: Re: [CIMC-working] egad, and other responses, from mr. g.
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 19:33:40 -0600 (CST)

On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, Garth Liebhaber wrote:

>
>
>hey folks,      read through the emails.  here's some responses.           
>1.  Chicago Media Working Groups proposal to Channel 11.  While we aren't 
>in denial about being media activists, I would want more 
>discussion/background info on the dynamics.  I'm curious about the language 
>in the proposal.  If we got a letter out of the blue from a group we'd had 
>little or no relationship with before telling us they set a meeting up and 
>decided the time and place without our input I think we would likely ignore 
>them.

Garth,

Please note: The Working Group is not a group that's come out of
nowwhere.  Chris G and Chris K are members of the Working Group, as am
I; Don Goldhamer has been to a meeting.  Other members include
representatives from Labor Beat and Citizens from Independent
Public Broadcasting--Chicago.

But I'm looking at this with jaundiced eyes. :-) I'll let others chime in
on this matter.

-- Mitchell

>___




_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 3 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= 
http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_addphotos_3mf