reviewing editorial policy Re: [CIMC-work] (regarding editorial
policy)
Chris Kaihatsu
ckaihatsu at myrealbox.com
Wed Mar 3 21:17:47 PST 2004
Chris, all,
Not that I'd ignore proposed revisions, but this statement/copy looks fine to me, as-is.
I think it's wise to periodically revisit where all our heads are at, regarding Indymedia and the CIMC,
As a personal preference, I have no problem with throwing copy back and forth on this list, but I can understand that it could become unwieldy. Nonetheless, I do think that email and listserves are excellent mediums for hashing out concrete meanings. Reviewing can be done point-by-point....
Chris
________________________________________
Save lives -- bring the troops home now!
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 22:59:40 EST, ChrisGeovanis at aol.com wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
More information about the Imc-chicago-working
mailing list