[CIMC-work] (regarding editorial policy)

[ChrisGeovanis at aol.com]

And I'm not trying to be contentious for laughs, either, Ian, nor do I take 
any of your remarks personally. What I AM suggesting is that mashing this out 
requires a lot of thought, hard probing, and even debate -- and, uh, work. When 
the collective originally drafted our editorial policy (such that it is), we 
held a series of meetings over a number of months targeted ONLY to this issue, 
and we learned that the process was not necessarily simple -- and could get 
contentious over issues that at first seemed pretty obvious. We debated 
extensively, for example, how to incorporate the issue of class in the language, and 
that turned out to be way more complex than many of us thought at first. I 
think a lot of us were surprised at how far apart we were at the beginning in 
terms of our mutual understanding of what Indymedia was, or sought to be. The 
editorial process was actually pretty grueling, but it really helped solidify a 
widely held set of core understandings that vastly strengthened the core group.

But. That core group is not the current collective, and we have many new and 
excellent members who never got a shot at partnering in this dialogue. I 
thoroughly agree with you that it makes sense to revisit our current editorial 
policy, and tweak, rewrite and rethink same. I think it would be a good idea, for 
example, to incorporate somehow the notion that we seek to avoid sectarianism 
in the movement -- but even this can get tricky when it comes to flashpoint 
issues like Palestine. We've been incredibly successful in this collective IMHO 
in functioning with a high level of mutual trust re editorial actions and with 
talking out issues in collective meetings and online to avoid some of the 
fracture lines that have created problems in other IMC's.

That said, out of respect to our newer members (and to improve the policy as 
it's currently stated) we should revisit our editorial policy, our mission 
statement, and other relevant language, to two core ends: 1) resolidifying our 
mutual solidarity and shared understanding of these policies, and 2) improving 
and clarifying the language where necessary, which as it currently stands, 
could at least be tighter. I am NOT suggesting massive changes in our core 
understandings, but especially for newer collective members, I think we could all 
benefit by a healthy discussion of those core understandings -- discussion that 
will hopefully help us tighten up our public messaging, strengthen our 
collective, and build a base of mutual understanding that will allow us to continue to 
avoid the kinds of disputes that have undercut other collectives.

So. Here's my proposal. People who are interested should agree to convene a 
working group specifically tasked to this project and get to work with 
rewrites. Personally, I am begging that we not undertake this until AFTER March 20.

I suggest the 'working group' format as an alternative to trying to mash this 
out online because 1) it gives people who have the time and interest to task 
themselves specifically to same; 2) editing by group over the listserve is a 
nightmare; 3) we can/must agree to put any 'final' proposed changes before the 
whole collective in one (or more -- eek) of our regular meetings, but get to 
dodge sucking up time at general collective meetings except where same is 
necessary (and it will be, so why not try to be efficient on the front end and go 
in with language proposals that at least a working group has mashed out on the 
front end). I also propose that this working group at least consider 
developing a list of ancillary material that can serve as training tools for people who 
want to use the website (stuff like "how to write a news story", "how to post 
your audio", et al).

People, what are your thoughts? I enclose below the relevant language I think 
we should consider revisiting. I'm also volunteering to take a shot at 
rewrites (but not until after March 20, and not outside of the oversight/input of a 
working group specifically tasked to this effort). Gak. 

christine (language for revisiting follows. Joy.)

About the Chicago Independent Media Center:

The Independent Media Center ("indymedia" for short) is a grassroots 
organization committed to using media production and distribution as a tool for 
promoting social and economic justice. It is a cooperative effort of hundreds of 
independent media organizations around the world, some of whose efforts you can 
visit via the list of worldwide indymedia centers on the left-hand column of 
this webpage.

The Chicago Independent Media Center ("Chicago Indymedia" or "Chicago IMC") 
is Chicago's contribution to the growing Indymedia movement. Chicago Indymedia 
maintains a website (chicago.indymedia.org) with an open publishing newswire, 
which allows anyone to publish their story or opinion and thereby quickly 
reach a wide audience. Chicago Indymedia also produces a monthly radio program, 
>From The Trenches, and a monthly TV series, Chicago Independent Television.

Editorial Policy 

Know about a community struggle the corporate media isn't covering or isn't 
covering honestly? 

Got a great idea to share with other activists? 

Want to share your photos of an event or action? 

Got audio or video that people just have to see or hear? 

This is the place to put it. Use any style you want -- journalistic, 
academic, or personal -- for telling your story. 

Use this form to contribute NEW stories and ideas. 
Comments should go with the story being discussed. To respond to a story on 
the site, please use the “Comment on this article” link below the stories. 

After stories have been published, they can be edited, linked or even hidden 
by the collective maintaining this site (using the story administration page 
-- password required). Generally, this feature is used only to fix mistakes 
such as typos in a web address or remove a duplicate copy of a story. 

Very rarely, someone abuses our trust, and posts a story that is far outside 
of, or in conflict with, the principles of the project and this website, and 
we may place editorial comment in it or even, in extreme cases, hide it. 

Examples of material that may be hidden include newswire posts that are 
racist, sexist, homophobic, or that clearly fly in the face of our mission to serve 
as a space for the exchange of news, dialogue and opinion that advances 
economic and social justice. 

Posts that serve as commercials for for-profit companies will be removed. 

We respect and support a diversity of opinion, but our site, as well as other 
sites in the Indymedia network, has unfortunately been increasingly targeted 
by quantities of right-wing disinformation and hatred-promoting messages. We 
would appreciate it if such persons would instead use, or set up their own, 
websites, rather then subjecting our readers and posters to their objectionable 
cant. For more information about our mission, see the “mission” section, 
immediately below, on this page. 

Stories contributed to this site are free for non-profit re-use unless those 
who post state otherwise. 

Mission Statement (drafted July 25, 2001) 

The Independent Media Center is a global network of collectively run media 
outlets for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth. 
We are motivated by a love and inspiration for people who work for a better 
world despite corporate media's distortions and unwillingness to cover efforts 
to develop an egalitarian and sustainable society. 

The Chicago Independent Media Center is a grassroots organization committed 
to using media production and distribution as tools for promoting social and 
economic justice in the Chicago area. We are dedicated to addressing issues that 
the mainstream media neglects and we do not conceal our politics behind a 
false objectivity. We will empower people to "become the media" by providing 
democratic access to available technologies and information. 

Legal Disclaimer 

The views and opinions expressed on this site do not necessarily reflect 
those held by the participants and organizers of the Chicago Independent Media 
Center. This site is based upon an open publishing method that allows any 
individual to post information and media to the site. 

The Editorial collective of the Chicago IMC oversees and administers the site 
whenever necessary, based on our editorial policy (see below), but we should 
not be held accountable for all of the newswire information you may find on 
this web site. 

If you have a particular complaint about something you've found on this web 
site, please email Imc-Chicago-Working at indymedia.org.

Technical details and tips about this website 

This Indymedia site has been designed to be as user-friendly as possible, 
while still attempting to manage a wealth of information, and some customization 
options. 

The left-hand column lists the main sub-section pages of the site, as well as 
a frequently-updated list of the other Indymedia sites across the globe. 

Users are encouraged to visit the login page, where they can create a user 
account that facilitates publishing articles, and allows some rudimentary 
filtering preferences based on ratings (see below for more on ratings). 

The center column is the centerpiece of the site. Our feature articles are 
produced or commissioned by the editorial collective, and strive to offer 
quality journalism and opinion from the Chicago area. 

The media gallery, highlighted at the top of the right-hand column, is our 
repository for photos, videos, and audio files uploaded to the site. When users 
have media to upload without accompanying text, from protest photos to flyer 
illustrations and PDF files, it goes to the media gallery. The gallery is 
broken down into categories, and can be searched by title, keyword, caption, or 
artist. 

The newswire, displayed in the right-hand column, is the backbone of 
Indymedia. Articles found on the newswire are uploaded by users all over the world, 
and instantly displayed on the site. For our part, we have divided articles into 
"Local Interest" and "Elsewhere", so as to highlight local events and 
discussion. 

It is the responsibility of the editorial collective (whose membership is 
open to the public) to oversee the newswire with a careful eye to balancing the 
open publishing philosophy with a desire to maintain the "newsworthy" quality 
of the site. To this end, we employ two methods: first, the editors will remove 
articles in direct violation of our (very liberal) editorial policy. This 
includes advertising, duplicate posts, pieces which fail to even resemble news or 
commentary, and articles which seriously violate our editorial policy. 

The second method is our user rating system. While browsing the site, you are 
encouraged to rate articles using the popup menu at the end of each piece. 
While user ratings cannot remove an article from the site completely, they serve 
the invaluable role of deciding how much prominence is given to the display 
of an article. 

By default, only articles rated higher than -6 are displayed in the 
right-hand column, and on the "newswire" home page. This is called the "display 
threshold." If you have created a user account, you can even alter that threshold to 
suit your own needs, e.g., display only articles receiving +3 or higher. 
Articles which fall below the threshold are moved to the hidden articles section, 
which is linked from the bottom of the newswire column. They are still 
available on the site, and can be linked to directly, but their prominence is degraded 
as a result of user input. You are encouraged to visit the hidden articles 
section to see what ends up there, and why. 

Finally, remember that the Indymedia site is here for you. We encourage you 
to upload your own stories, commentaries, and announcements that may be of use 
to the community. And you are further encouraged to participate actively in 
the Chicago IMC project.




In a message dated 3/3/04 7:51:36 PM Central Standard Time, 
ianb at colorstudy.com writes:

> Subj: Re: [CIMC-work] (regarding editorial policy) 
>  Date: 3/3/04 7:51:36 PM Central Standard Time
>  From: ianb at colorstudy.com
>  To: ChrisGeovanis at aol.com
>  CC: imc-chicago-working at indymedia.org
>  Sent from the Internet 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-chicago-working/attachments/20040303/2bfa31b8/attachment.html