[CIMC-working] Re: vampires and corps - POSTED: TABD update feature

[Chris Kaihatsu]

To weigh in, I side with Doug on this one -- 'vampirism' is apropos and
appropriately colorful / flourish-y, given the graphic (photo). It is not
editorializing, it is illustrative of the corporate dynamic, and of the
protestor's sign.

Appreciate the efforts, Doug, and everyone....

I think the corporate media covered the issue of how much the
conference/police presence will be costing taxpayers much better than we
have -- but then, maybe that's outside our scope...?


Chris









_________________________________________________
Why the US plans to bomb Iraq and not North Korea
http://wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/kor-o21.shtml












----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Morris <being@enteract.com>
To: Ian Bicking <ianb@colorstudy.com>
Cc: <imc-chicago-working@lists.indymedia.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 9:43 AM
Subject: [CIMC-working] Re: vampires and corps - POSTED: TABD update feature


> Hi,
>
> It is just about time to suspend debate to finish off the round of
coverage
> on TABD.
>
> But not quite...   we won't be able to work through this on Sunday.  This
> is going to be a long discussion
>
> But first...
> We need to change the word Greed back to Vampires or Vampirism or the
> phrase Corporate Greed to Vampiric Corporations or Blood Sucking
> Corporations or Corporate Blood Suckers.
> This is too powerful to miss.  It is great for the actual themes in demos,
> context, coverage, and reality of the horror of corporations.
> Whoever changed it needs to change it back in consideration of my
> arguments. Enough on that.
>
> There are major points to discuss that underlie the need for this change
> back...
>
> So.. to respond to your points here:
>
> At 04:40 AM 11/9/02 -0600, Ian Bicking wrote:
> >It's not really for
> >philosophical reasons that I'm of this opinion, it's for functional
> >reasons.  I feel that a more neutral title makes the site more useful to
> >the reader, and I feel usefulness to the reader should be one of our
> >highest concerns. In fact, I feel strongly that the most important goal
of
> >the center
> column is to direct readers to interesting and informative content.  ...
> I'm of the
> opinion that a more boring title is better,
>
> In reply to Ian:
>
> First. A functional approach is a philosophical approach, inherently,
being
> based on presuppositions about the nature of communication.
>
> There are profound philosophical presuppositions that motive the intent to
> make things useful and functional and boring.
>
> It is important to argue in the most strong terms that we should not
> constrain our coverage generally by the presuppositions of efficiency over
> depth, boring over vital and colorful, simplicity over some complexity,
> refferal/indexing over mobilization/awakening potential and even
occasional
> shock value or objective and dry over passionately political.
>
> More on this below.
>
> Second. Based on 15 years of on and off media editorial work in
> political/alternative contexts:
> There is not one main function for the center column.
> There are at least four (maybe five) most important major goals for the
> center page or front page or highlighted coverage in a news medium.
> None of these need dominate the other:
>
> 1. to summarize main points events and critiques.
> 2. to point to content
> 3. to mobilize actions and discussion
> 4. to offer creative or enjoyable or incisive or powerful views on the
> world succinctly
>          -- something that has intellectual or aesthetic value in own
right
> 5. And for political (or religious or artistic movement) media, one could
> argue:  to build movement networks and movement identity(ies)  (which one
> could argue in the case of the global justice movement is a commitment to
> diversity in views and identities together working for global justice from
> below).
>
> We need to balance these points.  Some of these do contradict the
> others.   Dick alluded to some of these points.    To not consider
> strategically and move to all of these ends is to most or lose the power
of
> media.
>
> More on the first points:
>
> The current reality of corporations and military imperialism are morally
> abhorent.
>
> The very language of objectifying news coverage is part of the way that
the
> horror of modernity is normalized and dealt with by corporations, media
and
> government.  People become human resources.  More death becomes increase
in
> mortality rates.  Government lies become strategic disinformation
> campaigns.  And willful exploitation and murder of human beings becomes
> simply: greed, not the most hideously rapacious amoral mass murder and
> drinking of communities and nations of people.
>
> We must have creative and political flair in our central column.  At
> times.  Push the boundary too much and you loose people.  Don't push it
> enough and we become what we abhor because the ways we have been trained
to
> think are to be tools of corporations and bureaucracies:  to become
> rational instruments of systems of domination, to become arbitrators of a
> normalized bourgeois reality.
>
> If we fall into the language of instrumental rationality we adopt the
norms
> of our oppressive society and edit out our radical critiques and
> passions....   then we've already lost have the battle to be radical
media.
>
> Political speech needs to be liberating: a praxis.
> This means challenging our presuppositions about efficiency and utility
and
> practicality.
>
> It is not practical to destroy the planet or stand by while millions are
> killed for sake of profit.
>
> We can not participate in recreating oppressive categories and modes of
> communication.
>
> In profound hope for some critique of monolithic standards of the
> objectification of media practice...
> Sincerely,
> Doug
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> Imc-chicago-working@lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
>