[CIMC-working] This article I hid, this one I did not

[Ian Bicking]

On Mon, 2003-02-03 at 19:59, Garth Liebhaber wrote:
> hey, just wanted to drop a note that I hid the following article.
> 
> http://www.chicago.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=19268&group=webcast
> 
> It is conspiracy theory minded with no bearing on our mission statement, 
> having nothing to do with social or economic justice.  Therefore it is 
> taking up space.

I do not believe we have reached any consensus on a hiding policy that
would include this post.  There is nothing in the policy (brief and
vague as it may be) that would lead to hiding a conspiracy-theory
article.  I don't care much about copy-and-pasted articles (which this
is), but we don't have any policy about that either.

It's a pretty vague article as well.  I don't know what its point is,
but I don't think quality or utility of the article is a criteria for
hiding either.

I have no problem with an editorial policy, and I do not support a
strictly open wire, but I do feel we need to have clear and concrete
criteria for hiding articles.  But I don't think this article would be
covered even under our vague criteria.  

You expressed before that you don't feel comfortable with conspiracy
theories in the newswire when you show the site to other people.  But by
hiding such articles you head down a path that ultimately leads to a
publication like The Nation -- painfully "moderate", desperate to seem
"reasonable" and "fair.  By erring on the side of the Moderates we lose
the strength and diversity of the opinions expressed.  I feel strongly
we should not head down that path -- that Indymedia's role is to be a
publication that *can't* head down that path -- and that there are ways
to help the newswire without imposing Moderate or mainstream
sensibilities in a restrictive manner.

> This one I did not hide.
> 
> http://www.chicago.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=19263&group=webcast
> 
> I did not hide it because the commentator pointed out the blatant racism of 
> it.  It is one of remaining racisms held in (some) the 'left' to make fun of 
> poor white folk.  so I left it.     Garth

I would support hiding this as it's, well, if not "racist", certainly
it's the same sentiment directed along cultural lines.  It has no
constructive satirical quality I can see, and I don't feel a negative
comment justifies leaving the article up.  It also confuses Appalachian
stereotypes with Texan stereotypes, but I guess I already said above
that I didn't think quality was a criteria.

  Ian