[New-imc] Arguments for a subject-based IMC
Chuck0
chuck at mutualaid.org
Thu Jan 2 05:00:03 PST 2003
Recently, I made a proposal to set up a subject-based IMC called
"housing.indymedia.org." There is a long-standing bias in the Indymedia
network against subject-based IMCs, which has always appeared to this
activist to be a fairly vacuous policy. One subject-based IMC
(climate.indymedia.org) has been created, although that project was
controversial. Other subject-based IMCs have been proposed, but none have
seen approval or implementation.
Our proposal for housing.indymedia.org was made because we felt that there
was an unmet need that IMC could meet in regards to housing activism. This
project is not being made because local IMCs are not doing a good job on this
issue--many of them are doing outstanding work. However, anybody can tell you
that a group of people working together is much stronger than scattered
groups who work in relative isolation. This is what a subject-based IMC could
do for people working on housing issues and those engaged in DIY journalism.
While IMC-Global does help pull some of this local work together, content
posted there on this issue has to compete with material on other subjects
(including content that has nothing to do with DIY journalism of IMC goals).
Before I outline reasons why subject-based IMCs should exist, let me address
some of the standing criticisms of subject-based IMCs, which can be found at
http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/GlobalThemes. It is revealing that
there is one argument for subject-based IMCs, which I think is evidence that
the IMC network hasn't fully addressed this issue.
>>Theme based IMCs?
>>Should there be IMCs based on themes instead of geography?
First of all, I prefer to use the term "subject-based IMCs" because "themes"
implies something lighter and less serious. Also, I would argue that
geography and location are a "theme" or "subject." A local IMC is an IMC with
a theme that is about location. There isn't anything wrong with the IMCs
emphasis on local IMCs, in fact, it's a good thing that local IMCs are the
priority in the IMC network.
>>Arguments against
1) an IMC should be grassroots related, involve local people, and help a
variety of different activist groups support each other
IMCs should be grassroots related, but the grassroots have needs that can't
be met by just a local IMC. Local IMCs are very useful on the local level for
housing activists and its good that DIY journalism on housing issues is being
done on local IMCs, but where do local activist go if they want to see the
big picture, in their region, country, continent or worldwide? How about
collaborative projects on a bigger scale, i.e. reporting on anti-homeless
campaigns in the United States or anti-squat repression in Europe?
2) there's more likely to be first-hand reporting from a collective which
meets face-to-face than one which is mostly electronic
Face-to-face meetings are good, but there is already lots of reporting being
done that is coordinated online. And collectives don't do reporting insofar
as individuals in collectives go out and do reporting (with the exception
being mutlimedia projects). Reporting is also done over the phone, which is
hardly face-to-face. The tools and methods of reporting aren't really a good
argument against subject-based IMCs.
3) decision-making, editorial policy, all have a higher risk of being
dominated by those with the best internet access in the case of an
electronic-only IMC.
This is a valid concern which is also relevant to those involved with local
IMCs. However, Indymedia has always been a project which relies on electronic
communication and networking. This is one of its greatest strengths and the
reason for its success. The Indymedia network has allowed isolated media
activists to work together, mostly online, but also in face-to-face meetings.
Decision-making already takes place mostly online in the Indymedia network.
The new IMC process is one example. Another example are local teams that
write center column features--these groups primarily work via email.
4) face-to-face meetings of a global (planetary) IMC would cause the most
oppressed people to be even more excluded than in electronic meetings
Face-to-face meetings are good. We need more of them. A subject-based,
international IMC would actually facilitate more face-to-face meetings,
because the information on that website would allow isolated activists and
localized groups to know more about similar groups and people in other
cities, regions, and countries. A subject-based IMC would actually do more to
facilitate face-to-face meetings than the status quo, or a simple subject
searh link on the global IMC.
5) in practice, requests for theme-based IMCs mostly seem to be a way of
avoiding the people work needed to constructively reorganise an IMC with
problems, taking the item to go step by step through developing a radically
transparent, consensus-based process, e.g.
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2002-May/003483.html
This might be the case in a few situations, but it is a weak argument against
subject-based IMCs.
6) it would increase the focus on centralisation
No, it's more like creating a big node in a network. It would be pulling
together content from local websites, but it would also prompt more reporting
on the issue. The subject-based IMC is creating a central, so to speak, IMC
on the subject of housing, but it would serve to augment what already exists
out there.
7) risk of less focus on face-to-face meetings, and so risk of coordinatorism
- where we stop focussing on giving equal access and participation to the
oppressed, creating a class of coordinators - the oppressed who criticise the
coordinators or choose different strategies are then looked at as ungrateful,
irrational people, who refuse to acknowledge the help of those who most want
to help them.
There is nothing about this subject-based IMC that would preclude the
"oppressed" from participating. If the IMC network is serious about this
problem, there already exist many problems that privilege things like free
speech over DIY journalism and the idea of "every reader a reporter."
It's interesting that most of these objections revolve around the issue of
face-to-face meetings, a noble idea, yet something that is about process more
than it is about content.
>>Practical alternatives
1 .Create a global mailing list to coordinate a category/feature/filter on
the http://www.indymedia.org site which can feed in local categories on the
theme - see http://www.indymedia.org/syndication.php3
o the global lists generally have functioning problems - people
who feel that making a global category/feature/filter should be aware that it
is not easy to get a global list to work well.
A global email list does not have to ability to include multimedia, or
stories combine with pictures. It could be argued that local DIY journalism
could be conducted via email lists, yet we still have local websites. Another
problem with an email list is that it isn't conducive to a person who just
wants to skim the news on a website without having to be subscried to an
email list.
And an email list is a poor substitute for a fully-functioning IMC website. ;-)
2. Create a category/feature/filter on your already existing and diverse
local IMC, and offer a mailing list to try and feed in make this become a
global subsite in practice. This way all the practical problems could be
dealt with by a local collective and the transition of the subsite from local
to global would be bottom-up instead of top-down. (Nothing is stopping any
local site from using the RSS feeds from other local sites to create their
own local mirror of central column features!)
Leaving aside the poor bibliographic access that IMC websites provide, this
is an inadequate idea that is thrown out to placate people who ask for
subject-based IMCs. This is the "throw more tech at it" attitude that
dominates the IMC network and leads to an unfair power situation where the
techies get to make policy decisions based on what floats their gourd at the
given moment.
Let me now turn to arguments for subject-based IMCs.
ARGUMENTS FOR SUBJECT-BASED IMCs
1) Subject-based IMCs promote the sharing of information of news across
geographical boundaries. They would help cross-pollinate activist news and
issue-based reporting in a network.
2) Subject-based IMC allow those readers, activists, and citizens who are
interested in one issue a place where they can focus in on news, information
and resources on that issue.
3) A subject-based IMC would promote more investigative journalism, instead
of the protest-oriented news and commentary that can be found on many IMCs.
An IMC that focuses on housing would higlight the excellent work already
being done on housing issues on local IMCs.
4) A subject-based IMC would provide a networking and organizational resource
for activists working on that issue. It would promote more face-to-face
meetings and projects outside of localities.
5) A subject-based IMC would empower those who are most affected by the
issues of homelessness, affordable housing, housing discrimination, poverty,
and so on.
6) An issue-based IMC would provide the nexus for collaborative reporting and
projects on the subject/issue. Imagine a project where reporters, activists,
researchers, and homeless people teamed up to cover the current crackdown on
the homeless in the United States.
7) The IMC network should be facilitating projects that media activists want
to do, instead of getting in their way. If there aren't serious technical,
resource and political reasons why a new IMC project shouldn't be created and
there is a need for the project being proposed, then the IMC network should
get behind a good, solid project that isn't necessarily local.
8) A subject-based or issue-based IMC would highlight the content being
created by local IMCs. The front page could be set up like the current
IMC-Global, in that a column could be created that pulls links and info from
relevant stories on local IMCs. Local IMCs such as IMC-DC, IMC-Bay Area,
IMC-NYC, and others have alot of quality DIY reporting being done on housing
issues and activism.
Happy new year everybody!
Chuck0
------------------------------------------------------------
Personal homepage -> http://chuck.mahost.org/
Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/
MutualAid.org -> http://www.mutualaid.org/
Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/
Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/
Anarchy: AJODA -> http://www.anarchymag.org/
"The state can't give you free speech, and the state can't take it away.
You're born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Freedom is something you
assume, then you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to which
you resist is the degree to which you are free..."
---Utah Phillips
More information about the New-imc
mailing list