[Seattle-editorial] editorial standards for imc sites - do we have one?

[Sheri Herndon]

hello editorial folks,

some background:

i recent had the opportunity to rave about the seattle editorial 
policy to a reporter in portland.  who was referred to me by dorothy 
kidd, who some of you know.  a wonderful 
academic/activist/radio/labor/organizer person.  there's an 
interesting situation in portland with their editorial policy and 
some recent actions that were taken against a posting by a reporter. 
i haven't gone through the whole thread yet but it's attached.

i guess the gist is that during a recent event in portland where 
protesters clashed with police, several reporters called it like they 
saw it (there's tv footage substantiating the facts) - people going 
after cops unprovoked.  or something like this.  i haven't seen any 
footage but i'm not sure this is the issue.  so a story gets written 
in the local newspaper by this guy who is the reporter i mentioned. 
a threat is posted to the newswire and then the reporter nick 
comments.  the comment is deleted.  the threat remains.  the comment 
is not found in the hidden section of the newswire.

nick then pursues this with people from the editorial collective and 
receives the following response:

nick,

i can not speak for anyone else, but i will give you my quick two cents
worth.  actions taken by portland indymedia volunteers are done as
completely autonomous individuals who just happen to share a similar
desire to keep portland indymedia alive and active as an activist tactic.
during meetings, decisions are generally consensus based, with everyone
getting a chance to make their voice heard.  as far as editorial
composting, however, that is the actions of autonomous individuals who may
choose to consult others and may not.  the general group thoughts around
composting articles can be explained with a metaphor.  portland indymedia
is a collective "virtual activist space" much like a sandbox.  volunteers
have created a sandbox in which anyone can come and play.  anyone is
welcome to add to or simply view the sandcastles that are already built,
and anyone is welcome to build their own sandcastles if they do not like
the ones that already exist.  what is not tolerated, however, is allowing
people in who have the explicit intention of destroying the sandcastles of
others.  we will keep our sandbox "safe" for creative individuals who want
to build their own sandcastles, without the worry of having it trashed by
bullies.  those same bullies have ample opportunity to mingle with their
own kind in the chat and posting areas of the corporate press, and other
websites.  portland indymedia editorial composting actions are a form of
activist self defense.

i hope this gives you a little more food for thought.

regards,

m2
southern cascadia indymedia operative
republic of cascadia (currently living under the veil of "authority"
otherwise known as the government of the united states of america)

here's the thread:

  It took some time, but here it is. First, the thread in which the veiled
threat was made -- the post is entitled "to prick little dick." it's
halfway down:

http://portland.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=53271&group=webcast

Oddly, the immediate response to the threat--the one that was removed--
doesn't show up when I do a search for these keywords: budnick, jed
duncan, or wingnut, all of which it included. It used to come up under a
search for "Budnick."
I also looked in the "hidden" section and for some reason it is gone from
there, too. The hidden messages are in sequential order, and it's not
there.
But in that main thread above you'll see references to it, and I printed
it out. It reads:
------------
Irony Remains Thick Among WIngnuts
Jed Duncan 1:56pm Thu Mar. 27 '03
"See you on the streets. And I'll see you long before you ever see me."
Jesus, you nameless wimps take the cake. You're harassing the same guy who
just went after Kroeker and Katz. And put his name to it, in print.
By threatening Budnick like that, it almost makes me think you're a plant
from Katz herself."
-------
(you probably know Kroeker= police chief. Katz= mayor. The article he
refers to is at http://www.wweek.com/flatfiles/News3485.lasso)
-------
Other posts defending me were not removed, for some reason, except this
one by "nonessential." I found it searching for "budnick:"
http://portland.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=53515

Another thread started by a post opposing violence against corporate media
was also removed -- I found it in the Hidden section:
http://portland.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=54229&group=webcast

For some reason another thread on the same topic was left up:

http://portland.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=54250&group=webcast

This post, questioning tactics of the black bloc in the wake of my
article, was removed:
http://portland.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=54552&group=webcast


Here are some other threads blasting me; all these were linked to from the
central features column:

this thread bears a post suggesting violence versus media, by "zombie:"

http://portland.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=53486&group=webcast

good post defending my article on this one, by TTR:

http://portland.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=53749&group=webcast

and another thread about the article:
http://portland.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=53562&group=webcast

Let me know what you think.
Nick

i guess my question is what do we think?  is there something we can 
do?  is there any violation of indymedia policies or principles or 
membership criteria?  i haven't reviewed their editorial policy but 
the comments above seem to indicate a fairly laissez-faire one.

i guess i'd love to hear from this group who i feel do some of the 
best work that i've ever seen concerning editorializing the newswire. 
this is also a kind of growing concern i have because i've been on cc 
lists and have been emailed privately and have been on a few public 
lists for local imcs and the general helpdesk where accusations of 
censorship have arisen because posts are being removed.  i've also 
heard from people in ngo's and nonprofits and very progressive 
foundations and grassroots radical activists about imcs in italy, 
germany and sf who they feel censor material.  not just show their 
strong political bias in the features section which is somewhat 
natural and understandable, but in how the newswire is handled.

one person from italy calls this the fundamentalism of italy 
indymedia.  he has numerous examples.  he works with the squatters 
movement, tutte bianchi and started global magazine which is 
currently in italian and expanding.  friends with toni negri and 
michael hardt so we're not talking about someone who is in the center 
of the spectrum.  these are just a few examples.  but i'm wondering 
what we all think of this, and more importantly what, if anything, we 
as the seattle editorial collective can do about it.

thanks for the time and consideration of this matter.  i see it as 
being highly important.

peace
sheri


-- 
You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a NEW model that makes the existing model obsolete.

Buckminster Fuller