[Imc-dc-editorial] breaking news for today? or wait for a feature, when people share their media?

[matthew bradley]

CNN just reported: ellsberg arrested again, among 50 or so doing 
non-violent CD in Lafayette park. at least 20-something arrested, 
including a catholic bishop, a methodist minister of some sort, a rabbi 
and other religious leaders and people of faith.

i haven't been reading the calendar -- Sam's has been busy too, so i 
guess that is from this event:

"11:30am: Witness and Civil Disobedience Action. Nobel Peace Prize 
Laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Former State and Defense Dept. 
official Daniel Ellsberg, Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, SOA 
Watch founder Fr. Roy Bourgeois, Fellowship of Reconciliation Director 
Pat Clark, National Coordinator of Pax Christi USA Dave Robinson, and 
others will lead the action which will include nonviolent civil 
disobedience at Lafayette Park begining with a press conference at 
11:30 am. For more information contact Judy Coode at 202-832-1780."

i don't feel strongly about making it breaking news... i don't know if 
we're really in breaking news mode. but it's certainly a feature 
proposal if we get more info on the action, or a feature for the days 
action once we get info on how those went off.

m

On Wednesday, Mar 26, 2003, at 13:40 US/Eastern, old school wrote:

> you can change it however you wish.
> but the note on tuesday at dupont speak out, came from
> rupert, and i'm assuming he knew due to sound system.
> but i haven't checked the newswire for a report and
> also there isn't one, so....
> as in previous incidents, reality doesn't exist unless
> it appeared on the newswire....    :)
>
>
>
>
> --- matthew bradley <matt@machination.org> wrote:
>> can we move this info to a new feature?
>>
>> "Anti-War Events This Week
>> Dupont Circle Speak out against the war scheduled
>> for 5pm today."
>>
>> the date says March 25 (on the feature) - but i
>> believe you mean for
>> March 26. if we're going to put this info in a
>> feature, it should be
>> maybe maintained in it's own feature box, always at
>> the top.
>>
>> also, the way it is now, it screws up the
>> information syndicated on the
>> Code Pink/AEI feature - so one going to
>> www.indymedia.org would have no
>> idea what this was about, because nothing is in the
>> "big headline"
>> field in the feature management form. not to mention
>> it sort of
>> non-sensically breaks up the feature.
>>
>> m
>>
>> On Wednesday, Mar 26, 2003, at 01:34 US/Eastern, old
>> school wrote:
>>
>>> I'm happy every time we discuss these editorial
>>> issues, even if we have to much to do.
>>>
>>> a) I don't mind "annoyances" and have proven this
>> in
>>> previous debates over what to hide.  I have
>> serious
>>> concerns re whether the poster in question, is "on
>> the
>>> same side," and that pretty much get to the heart
>> of
>>> it, (including why not Bill W.)  To emphasize what
>> I
>>> mean by "slander" and "cop-bait" (more commonly
>> know
>>> as "setting people up for attack by members of the
>>> state", this poster has made accusations of
>> particular
>>> incidents of activist "violence", that I take very
>>> seriously.
>>>
>>> However, I recognize my own hyper-alertness to
>> where
>>> this slander leads, that others may not have.
>> (Maybe
>>> we can have a 1/2 day workshop called "working
>> under
>>> code orange.")
>>>
>>> b) Matt helpfully framed this as a debate between
>> the
>>> priority of "community building" vs
>> "newsworthyness".
>>>
>>> c) In conclusion, I agree to the current status
>>> compromise, having a link to the photos only.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- clarissa peterson <clarissa@anarquia.org>
>> wrote:
>>>> I looked through recent photo posts and it's
>> obvious
>>>> who you are talking
>>>> about. We've discussed this before.  I don't
>>>> disagree that she's very
>>>> narrow-minded at times.  However, she is on our
>> side
>>>> (anti-war) and she is
>>>> part of our community of activists, and the
>>>> community at large.
>>>>
>>>> Our features frequently include links to newswire
>>>> articles that are
>>>> anonymous, or that are under a pseudonym.  In
>> those
>>>> cases, we don't verify
>>>> the identity of the author to make sure he/she is
>>>> someone we like/agree
>>>> with.   We simply base our decision of whether to
>>>> include a link on if the
>>>> post is relevant, newsworthy, of adequate
>> quality,
>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>> Some people on the editorial list approve putting
>> up
>>>> a link to her photos,
>>>> and I'm sure there are at least two.  You need
>> two
>>>> approvals to do
>>>> something, unless there is a block, right?
>>>>
>>>> If someone is going to block, they need to
>> present a
>>>> reason why they
>>>> seriously disagree with the proposal, such as
>> that
>>>> it violates the mission
>>>> of Indymedia.  From the reasons given here, it
>> seems
>>>> to boil down to the
>>>> fact that this newswire poster is annoying.  I
>> don't
>>>> think that's a valid
>>>> reason to block.
>>>>
>>>> Also, if we include her pictures in the feature,
>> it
>>>> encourages her to post
>>>> positive, meaningful things to the newswire,
>> because
>>>> they get featured.
>>>>
>>>> Clarissa
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At 05:33 PM 3/25/2003, old school wrote:
>>>>> There is currently a controvery over the use of
>> the
>>>>> photos on the code pink action this morning.
>>>>> The photos are relevant to the top feature.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, the photos were posted by a very
>>>>> controversial local "activist".  one editorial
>>>> person
>>>>> has a serious concerns and/or maybe blocks the
>> use
>>>> of
>>>>> these photos, due to the abusive behavior of the
>>>>> poster with re to our newswire.
>>>>>
>>>>> This poster is in the habit of posting
>> innumerable
>>>>> "comments" that are inaccurate smears and
>> slander,
>>>>> possible cop-bait, of activists and groups in
>> this
>>>>> area.  This poster refuses to write from
>> reasoned
>>>>> debate or arguement.  This poster has proven to
>> be
>>>> a
>>>>> sociopath abuser of not only our newswire, but
>> is
>>>> in
>>>>> fact banned from many local activist lists for
>> same
>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another editorial person argues that the only
>>>> relevant
>>>>> issue is whether the photos/post is newsworthy
>> or
>>>>> relevant to the latest feature.   Further, he
>>>> argues
>>>>> that the job of editorial is to acknowledge good
>>>>> information, and deal with bad behavior another
>>>> way,
>>>>> (block IPs or hide, etc.)  And he argues that
>>>>> editorial is not about "changing" behavior nor
>> is
>>>> it
>>>>> about personalizing our editorial policy.
>>>>>
>>>>> These views are countered with -
>>>>> We apply the editorial policy in the real world
>>>>> reflecting our own priorities and choices.
>>>>> For example, why hasn't editorial chosen to
>> feature
>>>>> articles by one local Bill W, when he has
>> written
>>>>> newsworthy, relevant articles?  One could argue
>>>> that
>>>>> we tend not to agree with his politics.  Well
>> not
>>>> all
>>>>> of his articles were crypo-fascist.  So what
>> then?
>>>> we
>>>>> all know he is a known abuser of the newswire
>> who
>>>>> needs no encouragement.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have sent notes to the editorial list re the
>>>>> "recruiter" for the National Alliance, who tends
>> to
>>>>> comment on feature articles only.  What do we do
>>>> when
>>>>> he is "reasoned", and not racist, but smearing
>>>> every
>>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
> http://platinum.yahoo.com