[CIMC-work] Re: Zionism and Lack of Editing

[ChrisGeovanis at aol.com]

Aha! A lurker cuts to the quick! Sort of. Tom, in answer to your question, 
this collective had an extended debate on this very issue over a period of many 
months in our early formation. The upshot? CIMC is a fair speech project, not 
a free speech project. Free speech: anything goes, however outrageous, 
offensive, hurtful or downright dishonest. Fair speech: news stories, et al from the 
left of the line, with a healthy editorial respect for and encouragement of 
genuine debate about differences.

That being the case, we do not allow right-wing spammers to post freely to 
our wire and clog it up with dreck. They can get their own websites, and are 
free to use our code for same. Strange that virtually none of those same 
right-wingers have decided to deploy the 'open publishing' principle. Guess the 
freepers don't love freedom all that much, after all.

Some issues are, of course, contentious in some quarters, but generally not 
within the IMC network (what HAS BEEN contentious is how to manage right-wing 
spam, and the larger free speech vs. fair speech debate, with the fair speech 
approach growing like wildfire over time throughout the network). OK, I'm 
talking about Palestine and zionism. The equation goes something like this: zionism 
is racism; zionists are also welcome to crib our code and create their own 
websites, but strangely they too are reluctant to deploy the 'open publishing' 
function. Huh. Odd.

If people don't get why zionism as a political project is problematic, there 
are a bejillion sources of information out their in the ether from many 
excellent sources. If people IN THIS PROJECT don't get this history -- and have the 
capacity to grasp the dynamics that drive conditions on the ground in 
Palestine, in the orbit of U.S. policymakers, and in world affairs -- then we have a 
problem.

So perhaps the issues are, in fact: do CIMC collective members share a basic 
understanding of news coverage from a progressive perspective, and do current 
collective members consense on Chicago's original formation as a 'fair speech' 
vs. 'free speech' website? Re the latter, I sure as shit hope so, because 
most other IMC's have also adopted this approach, in no small part to get a 
handle on the constant barrage of right-wing dreck dumped on their wires by 
inveterate (and commonly racist, sexist, homophobic, extremist bible-thumper) 
spammers.

There is broad consensus on the IMC network that posts of a racist, sexist, 
homophobic, anti-working class nature are not welcome on the wires. In Chicago, 
this has played out practically in an editorial policy that supports, among 
other things, hiding racist posts -- whether the alleged poster is a screaming 
right-wing zionist or a screaming anti-semite of whatever avowed political 
ilk. That means no posts about the protocols of the elders of Zion, and no posts 
bashing Palestinians under occupation as a bunch of inveterate suicide bombers 
with no legitimate political beefs. Again, people who espouse these 
sentiments are free to crib our code and get their own websites. 

Also, Tom, let me note that the vast majority of corporate media outlets in 
fact ruthlessly censor the kinds of voices their owners and news directors deem 
politically undesirable, to wit: union members, women, people of color 
(unless the story is about a crime in Englewood or something), class warriors, 
anarchists (unless it's a story about 'bad' anarchists fucking up some nice 
liberals' protest), communists, tax resisters, radical nuns, peaceniks, and a broad 
array of voices representing a progressive political or social/economic justice 
bent. Incuding...the Chicago Tribune! And if the corporate outlets don't 
suppress these issues/voices outright, they massacre 'em with distorted, 
superficial and downright disengenous coverage. 

Indymedia was created to counter this corporate spin, initially as a project 
to cover anti-globilization protests in Seattle in November fo 1999. It's 
geographical mandate has grown like crazy. It's basic spirit of resistance to 
corporate media distortions -- from a PROGRESSIVE bent -- remains intact.

I was one of the original conveners of CounterMedia, the progressive media 
project created in 1996 to provide alternative coverage of the Chicago DNC. That 
project led directly to the creation of indymedia. While the network has 
often been behind the eightball in clearly articulating the nuanced details of a 
fair speech approach to undercovered progressive issues, the spirit of that 
project remains remarkably intact -- embedded in the mission statements and daily 
practice of over a hundred IMC's. Chicago IMC could revisit our set of core 
assumptions, and maybe we should, if only to reaffirm our solidarity around the 
IMC's core mission: to speak truth to power, to give voice to the voiceless, 
and to resist corporate domination and oppression in all its forms.

Finally, Indymedia is non-commercial. Period. We don't accept advertising, 
and we don't serve as a vehicle for advertising. Despite Rob Z's complaints 
about the hiding of Tommy Brewer's campaign literature, which is...advertising. If 
Tommy Brewer is speaking at a forum about prosecutorial abuse, that's one 
thing. If he's looking for a venue to get his campaign literature out for free to 
prospective voters -- well, that's what campaign volunteers are for.

Tom, I also want to say that I have tried your proposed theater exercise, 
and...i t i s j u s t t o o m u c h.

christine

In a message dated 3/11/04 12:32:00 PM Central Standard Time, 
tom at ilmechliens.com writes:


> Subj:[CIMC-work] Re: Zionism and Lack of Editing 
> Date:3/11/04 12:32:00 PM Central Standard Time
> From:tom at ilmechliens.com
> To:imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> Sent from the Internet 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, all - 
> 
> I've been lurking for a long time, but I've gotta make a point on this
> anti-Zionism thread, because I think it goes back to the original point of
> Indymedia.  Didn't this Indymedia thing get started because the corporate
> media was filtering out stories based on their content, namely
> anti-corporate protest?  So Indymedia was formed to create a forum in which
> that wouldn't happen.  Would that legacy be properly honored by deleting
> stories which have content some of us don't like?  The idea of an official
> "Indymedia Code" that decides what topics are permitted (pro-Zionist,
> anti-Zionist), well, shit, even the Chicago Tribune isn't that hardcore. And
> neither should we be.
> 
> I do  think that the impact of a lot of this stuff could be greatly
> diminished on EDITORIAL standards, which seems legit to me.  Yes, on rare
> occasions there is a well-written, concise piece that reports on the arrival
> of Glurbs from Mars, but most of the crap is written like crap.  So it
> doesn't go to the front pages, and anyone who happens to find their way back
> to the badly written crap can do their own filtering at that point.
> 
> Now, Attention All Theater Geeks:
> This dramatic exercise is really fun, and it helps with determining what
> meets editorial standards.  You won't be able to complete this without
> laughing.  Your character is a small, highly energetic cartoon squirrel.
> You are holding a nut and standing on a small, wooden crate.  Standing
> around you are many creatures of the forest.  You are to deliver the
> following monologue as quickly as possible in a high, squeaky voice while
> gesticulating frantically:
> http://www.sfimc.net/news/2004/03/1683899.php
> 
> Now try it with a story from the front page of the Tribune, Times, or Post.
> It just doesn't work the same way.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20040311/9bcad688/attachment.html