[CIMC-work] (regarding editorial policy)

[Ian Bicking]

First, I think there is some confusion that I'm criticizing you or  
other people in the collective.  I'm not!  I don't feel people as  
individuals, or we as a collective, have acted poorly.  I only brought  
this up because I saw in these artifacts of the SF conflict a parallel  
with CIMC (and no doubt other IMCs, but this is the only one I know).   
Or, to quote from my original email "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."

It seemed like it would be easier to bring these things up now, since  
it's easier for people to build understandings with each other when  
there isn't a particular issue at hand, or a conflict that we're trying  
to resolve.  And really all I was offering were some of my thoughts,  
and a reaction to Nessus's email.

On Mar 3, 2004, at 8:47 AM, ChrisGeovanis at aol.com wrote:
> 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.

It's only hearsay, I'm not involved enough in the community to really  
know.  But it's the impression I've gotten from more than one person.   
Maybe it's wrong, maybe I'm reading into things without enough of the  
larger picture.

>  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.

I was a little uncomfortable with Mitchell's comments about Liane and  
the CMW.  Specifically because we were talking about whether Indymedia  
would be represented at Rolling Thunder, and so from the outside the  
comments could seem like they represented Indymedia, or they could  
otherwise cause problems.  Now, I'm not exactly sure who was copied on  
that email -- maybe it was no big deal when the audience was considered  
-- but it worried me.

(This was the email:  
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-chicago-working/2004-February/ 
002409.html )

> 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.

No, I'm not saying that at all.  I'm not actually saying there's  
anything we should change.  I am saying that we should be aware of  
*which* hat we each wear at any particular time.  When we're  
representing CIMC (or could easily be perceived to be representing  
CIMC) we should keep that in mind and probably be a bit more careful  
with our comments.  Really, there's not that many times when this  
applies.  If someone is introduced in a panel as being from Indymedia  
(though you can always note if you're talking personally), when we're  
editing the newswire, regarding the center column (which is a bit more  
subtle), and when we're trying to come to consensus.

Like, there was this guy in global tech who was always causing  
problems.  He'd have a personal issue with some other person, and he'd  
block collective decisions.  Or he believed in Free Software, and he  
blocked his local from buying Macs.  He wasn't able to identify and  
distinguish his own issues and beliefs from the needs and beliefs of  
the collective.  I'm glad we don't have anyone like that.

>  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'?

I have no problem with how you express yourself at meetings.  Even if  
we have to make decisions as a collective, we express ourselves as  
individuals in that context.

> 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!

I'm sorry if I've offended you, since you're so involved I can  
understand that you are very personally involved in the larger  
community.  It's just an impression I've gotten -- and, with any  
conflict in the larger community (and certainly there is some -- maybe  
it really isn't a big problem, I don't know) it is important that CIMC  
be neutral.  Obviously I'm just talking about the progressive  
community, obviously there are other conflicts where CIMC is not going  
to provide a very neutral forum.  That's fine with me -- religious  
dedication to covering "all sides" of an issue is tedious, academic,  
and requires a cynical view where the coverage becomes a horse-race  
between ideologies, as though the ideologies are just memes without any  
real importance.  I think we probably agree on that.

(An aside -- I was listening to one of the debates on NPR, and during  
the break they had a little commentary, and they spent about half of  
the break commenting on how the questions for the candidates seemed to  
be talking more about the race itself than the issues.  NPR just had to  
remain the undisputed leader in the horse race of horse races)

>  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.

I agree.  I wasn't criticizing CIMC.  But this comes right back to the  
original email, where Nessus seemed offended that other IMCs allowed  
people to post criticisms of SF-IMC.  I can appreciate his sentiment,  
but unfortunately it's directly in opposition to Indymedia principals.   
But I figured criticizing SF-IMC on a global list wasn't going to be  
particularly constructive.

>  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 here, 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.

Well, okay, to get into semantics.  When I say partisan, I mean aligned  
with organizations, specifically where the organizations become more  
important than the principles.  When Nessus (which is *really* what I  
was talking about, more than CIMC) referred to SF-IMC's "friends" and  
"enemies", this is what I read into his statement.  I think that way of  
thinking -- projecting personal emotional attachments or dislikes onto  
the collective -- can be dangerous and lead to an Indymedia local  
becoming "partisan".

Whew... okay, I guess that's it.





>  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
>
>
>
>
--
Ian Bicking | ianb at colorstudy.com | http://blog.ianbicking.org