[CIMC-working] Re: PROPOSED: next center block

[Doug Morris]

I am going to do the edits to current block now, receiving agreement from 
Ian (thanks!) and since they are minor changes....

To respond to Chris K and Chris G:
Thanks for comments.

I am ok with bloodsuckers.  I think vampires works better (I agree, not 
vampirism given objections to that)...

Vampires is better than vampirism (which indicates state of being like 
vampires and de-individualizes this).  I do think corporations can be said 
to be living in the state of vampirism and this is why yes greed is not 
enough to say (we are all greedy in one way or other) but corporations like 
vampires are:  death mongering, greedy, arrogant, amoral, immortal even 
(the organization is) until eaten/killed by another of the species, and 
there is use of any means to achieve ends of domination, etc.).

To clarify regarding differences in editorial philosophy:

This is on the chicago working list notes.
It is easier to survey posts by reading from here:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-chicago-work

To recap:

There were several emails offline to me talking about the right tack of 
center column editorials as:
"the bench mark for style for me is utility of the storyblock"

Some online emails from Ian talk about pragmatic issues of
"The mission *of the center column titles* is to indicate the subject as 
briefly as possible, to facilitate scanning the page. "
And later 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 not opposed to partisan content being pointed to 
at all -- and I'm not even hugely concerned with the impression of bias. 
But I just don't think there's *room* for flourish or opinion in the center 
column. "

Well, I disagree strongly with this as *sole* or primary criteria.  Which 
is ok.  There is are lots of ways to view things.

The above is a fourth or fifth element among others of of good political 
editorial ends.
The others being:
Movement: movement building in helping networking and presenting alt 
identity formations
Consciousness: critique and alternatives
Emotive and aesthetic: colorful and inspiring work
Gutsy: call things what they are, get at the truth
Usefulness and funcation: clear graphics and design and language

Note: some of the above can be quite contradictory at times.  So, it is 
good to have a variety of media and editorial styles in a 
movement...  and... within same publication.

So, talk about boring and pratical and simple center columns it is so 
against where I am coming from about political press.

I don't want to feel editorialized by the collective process because I get 
that in academia... but at same time I understand that we need group 
process... and am happy to work for some time within whatever the group 
consensus is... perhaps I will just need to adjust creativity to the 
newswire and hope that comes through.

Best, Doug

Someone wrote:

>what differences? what emails?