[CIMC-work] (regarding editorial policy)

Wed Mar 3 06:47:19 PST 2004

Whoa: "Since Chicago seems to have too many problems with cooperation issues 
in the community, it's an important issue in our local even if it hasn't 
caused internal conflict."

Ian, you raise some serious issues here, but obliquely. I'd prefer you call 
them out for clarity. Let me also say for the record that I completely dispute 
your assertion above -- that "Chicago seems to have too many problems with 
cooperation issues in the community". Indeed. Please back this up.

For example, you raise the issue of Lianne Casten and Chicago Media Watch. 
What's your complaint specifically? We're all adults and can be self-critical if 
necessary, but that's impossible if we don't know what the specific concerns 
are. This applies to your oblique remarks about M20 organizing, as well. I 
find this particularly important since your observations seem directed to CIMC 
collective members who are also activists in the larger progressive community, 
and one solution, of course, would be to discourage our collective members from 
wearing more than one hat, which IMHO would be profoundly fucked up and 
counter to the core spirit of Indymedia. 

The core issue, here, is, of course that people act with principle, so... is 
this not being done in your opinion? What's the beef here? This might develop 
into a kinda contentious conversation for a while, but it's really important, 
in no small part because I think it's critical that we distinguish between 
issues of political analysis -- and position -- on the one hand and personal 
style on the other. 

Lianne Casten is a good example of this. My political dispute with Casten the 
individual is based on her aggressive support of the most extreme right-wing 
Zionist forces active in Chicago. My personal presentation of my political 
understanding of Casten's agenda has been blunt. So what? Do you mean, perhaps, 
that when providing analysis and background at CIMC collective meetings, I 
should, um, like not swear so much, or maybe talk like I'm at a press conference 
that Channel 7 is covering and want to frame my remarks to enhance the 
likelihood that the outlet will showcase my remarks on the 5 o'clock news? Ha ha. Am I 
just too damned direct in CIMC collective meetings, thereby compromising the 
veracity of my information and analysis? See the difference between 'personal' 
and 'political'? And just where the fuck, might I ask, does this suggest that 
"Chicago seems to have too many problems with cooperation issues in the 
community". Er, Ian, how on earth do you think I have access to info about some of 
the dynamics of some of these issues? Why, because as an individual activist, 
I'm 'cooperating' with the broader activist community! 

But back to your use of the word 'partisan' -- do you mean 'partisan' in 
terms of, say, a broad opposition to racist oppression of Palestinians, or do you 
mean 'partisan' in terms of my historically blunt characterization of people 
who espouse this position as the cretinous jerks they are. 

I know of no instance in which the work of Casten's personal pet project, 
Chicago Media Watch, has been restricted on our newswire, et al. Same with M20 
organizing, which has been characterized by some pretty underhanded tactics from 
'liberal' activists (not their grassroots base, I might add) in the local 
peace movement, who have sought, among other things, to aggressively derail even 
any mention of Palestine in local peace mobilizations for M20. In fact, I'd 
argue that our newswire has served as a really useful non-partisan vehicle for 
different tendencies in the peace movement to hash out -- or at least clarify 
-- their respective positions. This is, IMHO, a good thing.

In addition, Indymedia is not, by definition, wholly 'non-partisan' in the 
strict sense of that word, so again, Ian, I ask: what's the beef? If you lay out 
the issues more specifically (don't worry about hurting anyone's feelings her
e, please...I have a thick skin), we can use this dialogue to help recraft a 
clearer editorial policy, as well as perhaps some working guidelines for 
collective members. Let me close by saying that I whole-heartedly agree that we do 
NOT want our editorial policy to be "personal" rather than collective. Parsing 
out what you mean by 'partisan' is much trickier, and we should just get on 
with it.

christine 

In a message dated 03/01/2004 3:18:16 PM Central Standard Time, 
ianb at colorstudy.com writes:
> 
> This is the part that bothered me most in his description.  While I can 
> appreciate the general sentiment behind his editorial policy, this 
> starts to hint at the policy being essentially a personal policy, not a 
> collective policy.  That there isn't any formal SF IMC editorial policy 
> adds to that impression.  Instead it feels like a partisan policy -- 
> which seems okay at first when you consider yourself aligned with 
> justice movements etc., but also seems like something that may have 
> exacerbated the division between sf/sfbay.  The site becomes personal -- 
> and I think we can all agree that some of the people in the SF area have 
> shown very bad stewardship of their Indymedia local, perhaps because 
> they don't appreciate that they have a stewardship role.  You don't have 
> to provide stewardship for something you possess.
> 
> I think there's some of the same issues in our collective.  I don't 
> think they've caused problems so far, but they could have, and maybe 
> drawing parallels will help us continue in that spirit and avoid 
> problems.  As we all know, some of the people in our collective have 
> contentious relationships with people who are also inside what would be 
> considered within CIMC's general progressive community (I use 
> "progressive" because I think it's the most appropriately inclusive). 
> Recently what's-her-name (starts with an L) from the what's-its-name 
> media group, though it certainly could have happened with some of the 
> M20 planning or other contentious issues in the community.  Since 
> Chicago seems to have too many problems with cooperation issues in the 
> community, it's an important issue in our local even if it hasn't caused 
> internal conflict.
> 
> And it's certainly fine that an individual have a problem with some 
> other person or group, but it's important that we not confuse our 
> individuals with our collective.  Certainly it's up to individuals to 
> decide, say, that they don't want to participate in a panel discussion 
> with someone they dislike -- we're all volunteers.  But that's an 
> individual decision, and if that's a motivation for the individual and 
> no one else wants to speak, it's still not the collective who dislikes 
> anyone.  Or, if some people don't like UC-IMC, CIMC does not dislike 
> UC-IMC.  (We could consense to dislike them, but I doubt we'd reach 
> consensus on that)
> 
> To generalize, I'd say that the collective should never become partisan 
> within the progressive community, for a very inclusive definition of 
> "progressive community".  No member -- as a volunteer -- ever has a duty 
> to cover something they are disinterested in, or some group they 
> dislike, but when it comes to editorial decisions like hiding articles 
> we should be very careful, and when it comes to things like what to 
> center panel, we should be aware that we are acting on behalf of the 
> collective -- and at its most expansive, the collective includes not 
> just our regular meeting attendees, but also all of our posters, 
> commenters, and even our readers.
> 
> Because of our loose editorial policy (loose compared to other news 
> sources), I think CIMC can be neutral on issues without being watered 
> down, because we (*as a collective*, not as individuals) host ideas 
> rather than synthesizing them.  As individuals we can do and say 
> whatever the hell we want.  It's a free country, right? ;)
> 
>    Ian
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-chicago-working/attachments/20040303/93353005/attachment.htm