[New-imc] Arguments for a subject-based IMC

[Tony]

Thanks Chuck for your detailed argument - and others for responses. 
Can we please all discuss this issue without dragging it into a "us" 
vs "them" argument... you know those little coments that are nothing 
to do with the discussion just about belittling the last respondent.

[sorry for lack of translation]
Summary: Subject based indymedias - would in effect be campaign led - 
leading to indymedia having to have stated positions on all issues - 
which would in take away an openness that we have now.

----------

For me the main issue with subject based imc's is the campaigning 
side. I know this is a blurred line with all imc work, as many of us 
are involved in other actvist areas, but Indymedia sites at the 
moment try to create a forum for people to post their own view (as 
would subject based) but i feel this works because indymedia does not 
have a strongly stated ideology/position. It is clear which side of 
the fence it sits on, as it should be, but does not establish what 
people should think on issues etc...

But i feel subject based imc's could become more campaign based, 
where they have to state what they want, why, and how, this would in 
the long term lead to indymedia having stated positions on everything 
(not decided by the participants but indirectly by each subject 
site.) And i say that as someone who has always stated indymedia is a 
political project not just alternative news.

Now personally i am sure i will be fine with many of these, for 
example 'climate chang' 'housing' or 'water', but there will be some 
where issues will become more divided, like 'animal rights' (also a 
past application), 'deep ecology' etc It is not the issues in 
themselves that are the problem but for me the direction indymedia 
will take through these sites. Maybe my problem is with the site 
names - as my list above shows - if they are too specific they are no 
longer open - but generic sites might work - i would like to hear 
more views on this.

Even with media issues we do not campaign too much in indymedia, 
again this is a blurred line and should be, but for example 'media 
democracy day/reclaim the media' was pushed by many in indymedia 
individuals but separate sites were set up and promoted as even here 
we would have had long arguments over words and deeds.

This is why for now i favour autonomous sites (using the same 
software if that is what it needs) - or catagories/syndication which 
i think is a direction indymedia should go - as i agree there is too 
much info that is unsearchable and therefore lost in a massive 
archive.

Anotrher issue is how much can Indymedia do - we can not be all 
things to all people, we have to leave space for other alternative 
medias - we are not the only form that this movement needs, other 
were here before us (many of us were involved in them) and others 
need space to develop...

This is not to say we should stand still and not develop ourselves, i 
personally would pprefer to sort out some of our wider problems with 
the same eagerness this seems to have raised!

So are there other ways to reach the same end point, believe me i am 
not trying to 'placate' anyone or pushing a 'long standing bias' but 
trying to talk about an issue that has been raised...

In solidarity

tony

-------

Also - I looked back in the archives and found another link to 
discussions that went on round climate-imc where jay brings up the 
idea of 'project' based imc's - could we add this to the twiki (a 
great use of twiki someone made there!) - there are other comments on 
this thread that are relevant to now.

============

http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-process/2001-July/001466.html

Hi everyone,

Quite a lot of good stuff coming from Germany and the Climate Summit this
past week via climate.indymedia.org.  As you all know, and were reminded by
the short flurry of e-mails right before the climate summit began, the
climate IMC isn't linked on the left column of the Indymedia sites.  There
are a lot of reasons for that; people raised them a couple weeks ago and I
think even offered links to previous discussions.  Over the last few months
many people in the IMC network have come together to agree that local IMCs
listed on the left hand column of the Indymedia sites should be 1) based in
a geographic area, and 2) sites with open publishing.  We all agree the
Climate IMC has done good work, but they're neither based geographically or
(please correct me if I'm wrong, climate IMC), do they allow unsolicited,
unmoderated posts to go to the front page of their site.  While this may
mean they don't fit into the current thought about what a "local IMC" is,
does it mean we should continue to not list them anywhere on the left
column of the site and therefore not direct people to the information
they've provided?  I don't believe it should. 

My idea is for us to list the Climate IMC as an IMC Project.  That would
put it not under a geographic heading, but under the satellite, print and
radio projects.  These are all international projects that do not require a
geographic location.  Also, IMC Projects have no requirement for having
open publishing.  While each of the projects is part of the Indymedia
network, they also all state that they're not "official" Indymedia
projects, meaning they're the result of individuals involved with Indymedia
coming together to make something happen rather than projects upon which
everyone has agreed.  I know it's a slight distinction, but it is a
disctinction. 
If we list Climate.indymedia.org as an IMC Project we could have the
Climate IMC linked through the www.indymedia pages and would still remain
true to our vision of what a local IMC is.  My only suggestion for them
would be to list the other IMCs on their site, which would further confirm
them as part of the network. 

Remember, the Climate IMC formed long before we had a new-imc working group
and long before we even had any perceived unity on the idea that new IMCs
would be based in a place, not in an issue.  The question about whether we
orient Indymedia toward developing issue-based sites in the future is a
different discussion, one that will have implications for IMCs that are
forming now and/or will form in the future.  Climate-IMC is here and has
been for a while.  I'd like to see us recognize the work they've done.

My thoughts on a calm Philadelphia night,

Jay

============

>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.
>
>
>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.
>
>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