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

[Garth Liebhaber]

Ian, all,
    We can easily put this back.  I was going to wait til hiding it, but 
thought well enough of.  I argued vehemently against any censoring, so I do 
not wish to go too far.  perhaps through discussion on specific items, we 
can refine our sense of what should be hidden and not.  Can others weigh 
in?, Garth
ps. if you want to put it
back now,that's fine with me.  garth


>From: Ian Bicking <ianb@colorstudy.com>
>To: Garth Liebhaber <garthliebhaber@hotmail.com>
>CC: CIMC Working <imc-chicago-working@lists.indymedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [CIMC-working] This article I hid, this one I did not
>Date: 03 Feb 2003 20:30:31 -0600
>
>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


_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail