[CIMC-work] Fwd: Re: [imc-us-process] Indymedia Newsreal TourGrantProposal

[Garth Liebhaber]

Hi gang,

here is another forward from imc-us-process.  a good 
read, as well as an update on the hot issue of people 
getting paid for indymedia work.

g.


---- Begin Included Message ----

From: deva <drdartist at riseup.net>
Sent: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 21:20:29 -0700
To: imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org
Subject: Re: [imc-us-process] Indymedia Newsreal 
TourGrantProposal



On Jun 19, 2004, at 7:13 PM, Ana wrote:

>
> i think john's attempt at getting peopel to talk about 
this civilly and
> constructively is great. thank you. i would like to try 
that.
>
> im sorry if my post came across as an attack. in truth, i 
am hostile 
> to what
> i often read as destructive criticism via anonymous 
listserve. i have 
> seen
> many amazing indymedia builders burnt out by it, 
including myself, and 
> im
> still bitter about it.
>
> deva, i think your comments are fair.

thank you


> i think many of mark's suggestions for
> improvement are good. i think FSTV deserves to hear 
 from us about what 
> the
> general reaction is. i still dont think that we can tell 
FSTV what 
> projects
> they should or shouldnt do, but we can say that we 
think the project 
> has
> been ill-conceived, badly planned, and does not take 
advantage of
> indymedia's grassroots power. if we decide to do that, 
we will have to 
> come
> to some internal agreements about what the feedback 
letter should 
> focus on,
> and that might be difficult. but maybe we should try. 
more on that 
> later.

A local imc cannot tell FSTV what they should do, but it 
can decide 
whether to participate. This grant assumes the 
participation of the 
local imc's in the 30 cities without even asking them. It 
assumes that 
the local imc's will welcome the effort and it pushes those 
imc's into 
accepting it as it is

>
> i just want to say first that my post was not referring so 
much to the
> actual proposal, but rather to the, in my opinion, very 
dangerous urge 
> to
> want to control every detail of every project that 
mentions indymedia's
> name. there is talk of FSTV stealing and exploiting 
indymedia's brand 
> name.

I have not seen evidence of people wanting to control 
things in the 
minutia. I have seen people raising concerns regarding the 
effectiveness and fairness of this effort.

Now one thing, you say FSTV, as if it is the institution as a 
whole 
that is being criticized and you want to defend it. It may 
be a couple 
individuals who are acting in a way that others in FSTV 
itself may not 
approve of. Not knowing this, one way or the other, I have 
not aimed 
criticism at FSTV as in institution, but towards this specific 
action. 
Others have done the same



> that kind of talk really pisses me off, because i think it 
betrays the
> amorphous nature of the network, excludes our 
identified allies who 
> dont
> have to be an official imc to be part of indymedia, and 
ignores the 
> fact
> that its these very allies that started indymedia in the 
first place. 
> they
> are after all, trying to support indymedia work, get 
crucial issues 
> out via
> a powerful broadcast, and in the long-run, help expand 
the world and 
> quality
> of independent media. they are also trying to improve 
the content of 
> FSTV.
> they are entitled to fundraise for projects they think will 
do that. 
> maybe
> they are doing it all wrong, but we should point these 
things out to 
> them as
> allies, not adversaries, and advise them on what may be 
more effective 
> ways
> to energize and involve indymedia behind this project.
>
> on a broader note, i cant resist commenting on the 
paying people thing
> again. to reiterate the obvious: there is no consensus in 
the network 
> about
> paying people. there never was and there never will be. 
that is why it 
> is
> not a principle of unity. we are not united about it. so 
what does a
> decentralized, dare i say anarchist, network do about 
that? we leave 
> the
> decision to be consensed upon locally and on a per-
project basis.

okay, since you cant resist, neither will I  :-)

POU #5 says indymedia and all local imc's shall be not-
for-profit

What does that mean then? Why is it there? It surely is in 
the POU. I 
submit it is there because it is a critical issue.

Beyond that, there is the unspoken decision that people 
do not get paid 
and that is why indymedia is organized as a volunteer 
effort.



>
> here is another fitting example. im sure you are all 
aware of how 
> there is a
> constant debate over whether or not each imc's 
newswires should be 
> cleaned
> up of right-wing posts. some people say absolutly 
becasue indymedia is 
> there
> to provide space for progressive ideas only. the right-
wingers have 
> plenty
> of space everywhere else to spew their shit. others, 
however, 
> passionately
> disagree. they feel the newswires are a public space 
where debate can 
> be
> had, and maybe some minds can be changed. they 
oppose any type of 
> censorship
> and feel that if we started censoring anyone, we would 
be destroying 
> the
> vision of a truly liberated people's media. fair 
arguments on both 
> sides. no
> consensus in the network. so the solution is to leave it 
up to local
> collectives to decide how to deal with their newswire. 
some imc's 
> constantly
> and painstakingly patrol their newswires to erase hate-
speech. others 
> go so
> far as to make their unedited newswires their one big 
center column 
> and have
> no editorial input whatsoever.

An argument has no worth in and of itself. What is the 
result?

It would be interesting to look at the local imc's that are 
more 
effective in building local community, at fostering sane 
approaches to 
living, and at opposing the forces that try to undermine it.

If you look across the network and see that consistently 
one of those 
two approaches is giving better results, then that 
understanding needs 
to be acknowledged. That is not to say some way should 
be imposed by an 
enforcing entity. However, if I am serious about bring 
about positive 
change, I am going to move towards models that work 
better. If I refuse 
to do so, then I am putting ideological concepts ahead of 
results.

Here in Portland, I have been involved since this site was 
very slow 
and not much utilized. At that time it worked fine to leave 
all posts 
up. It was not effective enough for people to bother to 
disrupt it or 
try to co-opt it. The more people started using it, and the 
more 
effective it has become the greater the number of people 
coming to the 
site intending to harm it. I remember when SF started 
hiding posts and 
I was critical of them at the time. But then I understood 
why as the 
Portland site became so overrun with crap that the people 
actually 
posting community news were leaving and the site was on 
its way to 
useless. The choice was to adjust the policy, or accept 
that the people 
in the community who were posting relevant local news 
and using the 
site for organizing would stop doing so. The policy was 
adjusted. That 
is one of the choices that has resulted in Portland imc 
becoming an 
effective community resource that serves over 1 million 
pages per 
month.

I believe if we look at results, we will see that the choice 
to hide 
posts will be more effective in developing a useful 
resource and in 
fulfilling the indymedia mission. (generally expressed as 
the mission 
of making the world a better place)


>
> point is that the debate over paying people falls into the 
same 
> category.
> some collectives like portland vehemently hate the idea 
of paying 
> people.

I do not hate the idea of  paying people. I work to prevent 
the idea of 
indymedia being subverted or destroyed because people 
are trying to 
make it something it is not in order to get paid, not 
because that is 
the best thing for the public good. When I bring these 
issues up, they 
are assumed to be philosophical. I say the same thing as 
above. Let us 
look at results. I am not stuck in philosophies which are 
divorced from 
reality.

I do not oppose the idea of experimentation. Try making a 
local 
indymedia where people get paid. Make it work. I respect 
visions that 
work. Indymedia as a volunteer effort now has some track 
record. An 
indymedia where people get paid in an egalitarian manner 
does not.

I do not see anyone making such an experiment. What I 
do see are 
individuals looking for ways to get paid themselves. That 
is a very 
different thing. That is not a vision. That is not a collective 
effort 
to provide a more sustainable future.

In my opinion, if you are going to bring pay into it, then it 
needs to 
be done according to the same collective and egalitarian 
principles 
that we all have agreed to. It shouldn't suddenly become 
different when 
money is introduced. The fact that it does become 
different exactly 
shows one of the real dangers of money.

When you have money, you also have issues like people 
being afraid to 
write what they really think because they are worried that 
they will 
not get paid if they do? If indymedia pays people, will then 
those 
people be afraid to make a video, or article which 
criticizes the hand 
that feeds it? How about controversial issues?

Do we create an atmosphere where people who spend 
more time thinking of 
their own interest get money and the more altruistic 
people, and the 
ones willing to live simply on less spend less time looking 
to get paid 
and so get less? What sort of behavior do we reward then? 
Also, what 
are shit tasks? Tech people I know, love doing tech. 
People who design 
websites, do graphics, do outreach, they enjoy it. Does 
not paying one 
or the other create classes?

Just because there is a vision of people getting paid and it 
sounds 
fine in theory, does not make it a clean and healthy thing 
for 
individuals to start figuring out how to get paid 
themselves.

Here in Portland, folks have worked hard to encourage 
people in the 
community to write, take photos, report etc. Portland IMC 
is successful 
because of many people who never come to meetings and 
who I may not 
even know at all. Why should I profit in part off of their 
labor? One 
of the reasons they are willing to put in their labor without 
monetary 
gain, is because I am willing to put in my labor without 
monetary gain. 
It is a pact we share, knowing that we all stand level on 
the ground. 
Another reason is because their voice is as important as a 
portland 
indy 'editor'.

The idea of indymedia is that anyone can be the media. 
That people and 
communities can tell their own stories. In some sense, it is 
doing away 
with the notion of the journalist and the elite position they 
currently 
have as the intermediaries, the tellers of other peoples 
stories. To 
think of yourself in the career of indymedia and being 
paid, is to 
place yourself into the position that you are the story 
teller for 
others and that you intend to stay there. I see this as 
undermining the 
basic concept of empowering people to use their own 
voices.

The very notion of open publishing, the heart of the 
indymedia concept, 
makes it so hard to measure contributions and offer 
monetary rewards 
accordingly. Who is indymedia? Who gets paid?

Indymedia is a tactic, a grassroots effort to empower 
whole 
communities, it is not a news organization like Democracy 
Now. Seems to 
me, if you want to get paid, you should work for 
Democracy Now or other 
such institution organized in such a manner as to make it 
practical. 
The way indymedia is organized, does not accommodate 
money. Bringing in 
money means you will have to shape indymedia to 
accommodate it.

To bring in money, will mean to change the lovely 
amorphous shape and 
organic character of indymedia that you mention. Money 
means you have 
to count and categorize things, measure them and keep 
track of them.

I believe that is a big mistake. Please leave some place 
where money, 
and all the trappings that go with it are not a central 
driving 
force...

regards,
deva



> that is fine, they dont have to. other imc's feel that part 
of building
> sustainable independent media means creating means 
and ways for radical
> media activists to leave their corporate jobs and still 
feed their 
> kids.
> again, i understnad and respect both visions. i 
personally agree with 
> the
> latter. i do think, however, that at this stage, when 
indymedia is 
> still so
> nascent, paid people should not be paid to produce 
content, but rather 
> do
> the shit tasks that enable others to make media. as a 
clarification, I 
> am
> talking about local collectives or projects fundraising to 
pay their 
> own
> people, "enablers". i am not talking about the network 
paying peopel 
> to do
> the network work we have all been involved in, because 
i know there 
> would be
> no consensus there. but im getting into minutia.
>
> i just think it is important to remember we are too 
diverse, living 
> under
> radically different situations to micromanage everyone's 
business, or 
> worse,
> impose our own personal philosophies on a vast world-
wide network. 
> that to
> me is the spirit of a decentralized autonomous network.
> _______________________________________________
> imc-us-process mailing list
> imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-us-
process
>

_______________________________________________
imc-us-process mailing list
imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-us-
process


---- End Included Message ----


Good People. Great Causes. Get Connected on Care2 Connect:
http://www.care2.com/go/z/C2Connect