[CIMC-working] Re: vampires and corps - POSTED: TABD update feature
ChrisGeovanis@aol.com
ChrisGeovanis at aol.com
Sun, 10 Nov 2002 01:42:03 EST
--part1_162.16cf2e77.2aff59bb_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
ok, i'm stepping back in this late. 'vampirism' -- what does this mean? a
pleasant evening out with goth friends? tendencies to nocturnal wakefulness?
a yearning to suck blood? must we be metaphorical, anyway? why not say
corporate bloodsuckers rather than corporate vampirism? at least the meaning
is clear. i'm not particularly happy with 'actions against corporate greed'
either, because, of course, the headline still makes no reference to what the
actions are or what the topic is, and headlines above all are supposed to
underscore the core issues (this doesn't, because it says nothing about the
actions and dangerously assumes a casual reader knows what the fuck the
brouhaha is all about -- a lethal editing mistake) and entice the reader into
the larger story. the use of the word 'vampirism' is worse, because it's
meaning is oblique, arched, and cute, which i find undercuts the credibility
of the overall block and the larger issues. i'm personally sick of all the
corporate mocking re coverage of the tabd. i fail to see why we have to
replicate the same. i'm all for humor -- humor is seditious -- but not at the
expense of clarity. AP style with guts is a reasonable approach, as it's a
news project, after all. i vote for the blunt approach -- 'bloodsuckers' --
or the direct approach -- 'greed'.
sorry if this is creating a consensus nightmare. i thought i had clearance to
make this change.
christine
In a message dated 11/09/2002 3:31:30 PM Central Standard Time,
ckaihatsu@myrealbox.com writes:
> Subj:Re: [CIMC-working] Re: vampires and corps - POSTED: TABD update feature
>
> Date:11/09/2002 3:31:30 PM Central Standard Time
> From:<A HREF="mailto:ckaihatsu@myrealbox.com">ckaihatsu@myrealbox.com</A>
> To:<A HREF="mailto:imc-chicago-working@lists.indymedia.org">imc-chicago-working@lists.indymedia.org</A>
> Sent from the Internet
>
>
>
> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> Imc-chicago-working@lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
>
--part1_162.16cf2e77.2aff59bb_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">ok, i'm stepping back in this late. 'vampirism' -- what does this mean? a pleasant evening out with goth friends? tendencies to nocturnal wakefulness? a yearning to suck blood? must we be metaphorical, anyway? why not say corporate bloodsuckers rather than corporate vampirism? at least the meaning is clear. i'm not particularly happy with 'actions against corporate greed' either, because, of course, the headline still makes no reference to what the actions are or what the topic is, and headlines above all are supposed to underscore the core issues (this doesn't, because it says nothing about the actions and dangerously assumes a casual reader knows what the fuck the brouhaha is all about -- a lethal editing mistake) and entice the reader into the larger story. the use of the word 'vampirism' is worse, because it's meaning is oblique, arched, and cute, which i find undercuts the credibility of the overall block and the larger issues. i'm personally sick of all the corporate mocking re coverage of the tabd. i fail to see why we have to replicate the same. i'm all for humor -- humor is seditious -- but not at the expense of clarity. AP style with guts is a reasonable approach, as it's a news project, after all. i vote for the blunt approach -- 'bloodsuckers' -- or the direct approach -- 'greed'.<BR>
<BR>
sorry if this is creating a consensus nightmare. i thought i had clearance to make this change.<BR>
<BR>
christine<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 11/09/2002 3:31:30 PM Central Standard Time, ckaihatsu@myrealbox.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Subj:<B>Re: [CIMC-working] Re: vampires and corps - POSTED: TABD update feature </B><BR>
Date:11/09/2002 3:31:30 PM Central Standard Time<BR>
From:<A HREF="mailto:ckaihatsu@myrealbox.com">ckaihatsu@myrealbox.com</A><BR>
To:<A HREF="mailto:imc-chicago-working@lists.indymedia.org">imc-chicago-working@lists.indymedia.org</A><BR>
<I>Sent from the Internet </I><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
To weigh in, I side with Doug on this one -- 'vampirism' is apropos and<BR>
appropriately colorful / flourish-y, given the graphic (photo). It is not<BR>
editorializing, it is illustrative of the corporate dynamic, and of the<BR>
protestor's sign.<BR>
<BR>
Appreciate the efforts, Doug, and everyone....<BR>
<BR>
I think the corporate media covered the issue of how much the<BR>
conference/police presence will be costing taxpayers much better than we<BR>
have -- but then, maybe that's outside our scope...?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Chris<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
_________________________________________________<BR>
Why the US plans to bomb Iraq and not North Korea<BR>
http://wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/kor-o21.shtml<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: Doug Morris <being@enteract.com><BR>
To: Ian Bicking <ianb@colorstudy.com><BR>
Cc: <imc-chicago-working@lists.indymedia.org><BR>
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 9:43 AM<BR>
Subject: [CIMC-working] Re: vampires and corps - POSTED: TABD update feature<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> Hi,<BR>
><BR>
> It is just about time to suspend debate to finish off the round of<BR>
coverage<BR>
> on TABD.<BR>
><BR>
> But not quite... we won't be able to work through this on Sunday. This<BR>
> is going to be a long discussion<BR>
><BR>
> But first...<BR>
> We need to change the word Greed back to Vampires or Vampirism or the<BR>
> phrase Corporate Greed to Vampiric Corporations or Blood Sucking<BR>
> Corporations or Corporate Blood Suckers.<BR>
> This is too powerful to miss. It is great for the actual themes in demos,<BR>
> context, coverage, and reality of the horror of corporations.<BR>
> Whoever changed it needs to change it back in consideration of my<BR>
> arguments. Enough on that.<BR>
><BR>
> There are major points to discuss that underlie the need for this change<BR>
> back...<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
> So.. to respond to your points here:<BR>
><BR>
> At 04:40 AM 11/9/02 -0600, Ian Bicking wrote:<BR>
> >It's not really for<BR>
> >philosophical reasons that I'm of this opinion, it's for functional<BR>
> >reasons. I feel that a more neutral title makes the site more useful to<BR>
> >the reader, and I feel usefulness to the reader should be one of our<BR>
> >highest concerns. In fact, I feel strongly that the most important goal<BR>
of<BR>
> >the center<BR>
> column is to direct readers to interesting and informative content. ...<BR>
> I'm of the<BR>
> opinion that a more boring title is better,<BR>
><BR>
> In reply to Ian:<BR>
><BR>
> First. A functional approach is a philosophical approach, inherently,<BR>
being<BR>
> based on presuppositions about the nature of communication.<BR>
><BR>
> There are profound philosophical presuppositions that motive the intent to<BR>
> make things useful and functional and boring.<BR>
><BR>
> It is important to argue in the most strong terms that we should not<BR>
> constrain our coverage generally by the presuppositions of efficiency over<BR>
> depth, boring over vital and colorful, simplicity over some complexity,<BR>
> refferal/indexing over mobilization/awakening potential and even<BR>
occasional<BR>
> shock value or objective and dry over passionately political.<BR>
><BR>
> More on this below.<BR>
><BR>
> Second. Based on 15 years of on and off media editorial work in<BR>
> political/alternative contexts:<BR>
> There is not one main function for the center column.<BR>
> There are at least four (maybe five) most important major goals for the<BR>
> center page or front page or highlighted coverage in a news medium.<BR>
> None of these need dominate the other:<BR>
><BR>
> 1. to summarize main points events and critiques.<BR>
> 2. to point to content<BR>
> 3. to mobilize actions and discussion<BR>
> 4. to offer creative or enjoyable or incisive or powerful views on the<BR>
> world succinctly<BR>
> -- something that has intellectual or aesthetic value in own<BR>
right<BR>
> 5. And for political (or religious or artistic movement) media, one could<BR>
> argue: to build movement networks and movement identity(ies) (which one<BR>
> could argue in the case of the global justice movement is a commitment to<BR>
> diversity in views and identities together working for global justice from<BR>
> below).<BR>
><BR>
> We need to balance these points. Some of these do contradict the<BR>
> others. Dick alluded to some of these points. To not consider<BR>
> strategically and move to all of these ends is to most or lose the power<BR>
of<BR>
> media.<BR>
><BR>
> More on the first points:<BR>
><BR>
> The current reality of corporations and military imperialism are morally<BR>
> abhorent.<BR>
><BR>
> The very language of objectifying news coverage is part of the way that<BR>
the<BR>
> horror of modernity is normalized and dealt with by corporations, media<BR>
and<BR>
> government. People become human resources. More death becomes increase<BR>
in<BR>
> mortality rates. Government lies become strategic disinformation<BR>
> campaigns. And willful exploitation and murder of human beings becomes<BR>
> simply: greed, not the most hideously rapacious amoral mass murder and<BR>
> drinking of communities and nations of people.<BR>
><BR>
> We must have creative and political flair in our central column. At<BR>
> times. Push the boundary too much and you loose people. Don't push it<BR>
> enough and we become what we abhor because the ways we have been trained<BR>
to<BR>
> think are to be tools of corporations and bureaucracies: to become<BR>
> rational instruments of systems of domination, to become arbitrators of a<BR>
> normalized bourgeois reality.<BR>
><BR>
> If we fall into the language of instrumental rationality we adopt the<BR>
norms<BR>
> of our oppressive society and edit out our radical critiques and<BR>
> passions.... then we've already lost have the battle to be radical<BR>
media.<BR>
><BR>
> Political speech needs to be liberating: a praxis.<BR>
> This means challenging our presuppositions about efficiency and utility<BR>
and<BR>
> practicality.<BR>
><BR>
> It is not practical to destroy the planet or stand by while millions are<BR>
> killed for sake of profit.<BR>
><BR>
> We can not participate in recreating oppressive categories and modes of<BR>
> communication.<BR>
><BR>
> In profound hope for some critique of monolithic standards of the<BR>
> objectification of media practice...<BR>
> Sincerely,<BR>
> Doug<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> _______________________________________________<BR>
> Imc-chicago-working mailing list<BR>
> Imc-chicago-working@lists.indymedia.org<BR>
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
Imc-chicago-working mailing list<BR>
Imc-chicago-working@lists.indymedia.org<BR>
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_162.16cf2e77.2aff59bb_boundary--