[Seattle-editorial] (1) Learning to work together, (2) the content of localism

[Ben Seattle]

Hi everyone,

I am replying to the "Shameful fruits thread at:
http://seattle.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=35008

I assume that many or most subscribers to this list have seen it
since it since it was discussed here on the "brain damage: the
debate of trolls" thread when it first began.

------------------------------------------------------------
working relationships that avoid unnecessary friction
------------------------------------------------------------

The first issue I would like to raise is the question of tone,
particularly as used by one or more anonymous editorial
collective members.

And, while I'm at it, what's the deal with editorial members
hiding behide anonymity?  I use a pseudonym (for reasons that
should be clear) in all my political work and consider nothing
wrong with that--but I am consistent with using the same
pseudonym whether I post here or anywhere--because letting people
know who you are is a basic part of civilized interaction with
others--and is inseparable from taking responsibility for your
actions.  When one editorial collective member posts insulting
comments without using a consistent name or pseudonym--then he or
she is, in effect, hiding behind the skirts of all the other
members.  If one editorial collective member acts like a jerk
then the entire editorial collective is more likely to be seen as
jerks--unless the member who is posting takes responsibility for
his or her actions by identifying himself or herself.

A number of editorial collective members have responded to the
"Shameful fruits" thread with an emotional and insulting tone.
What is the point of such behavior?  I think it is done to vent
or express emotions.  Of course it is sometimes healthy to
express emotions.  But it is not useful or productive to attempt
to initiate a pissing contest with readers who take their time
(which may be just as precious as your time by the way) to
explain why it hurts the movement to segregate posts on
Palestine.

Both Wilhelmina and I have taken the time to present our views in
a calm way.  In response, one or more editorial collective
members has posted a variety of comments on the "Shameful fruits"
thread that appear aimed at discouraging discussion.
Wilhelmina's thread was called "an act of aggression".  I was
said to be a complete moron with an anti-IMC agenda.  Note well:
this is in the context of criticisms made by Wilhelmina and me
that the editorial group has apparently recognized as correct (at
least in a temporary, defacto sense--because the policy of
segregating posts on Palestine has been discontinued at least for
now).

Of course it is natural in discussion of political differences
for things sometimes to get a little heated and over the top.
But I think it should be clear that the movement is served by a
calm tone of discussion among progressive people--and that we
should all strive for such a calm tone.  Since we are all human
we sometimes overreact to something which we consider
provocative.  But, in the interest of the movement, we should
(after we have calmed down) recognize and apologize for our
overreaction.  That's my view at least.  Unnecessary friction
makes it more difficult to communicate and collaborate.
Unnecessary friction between ourselves serves the interest of the
corporations and the ruling class.

------------------------------------------------------------
Who owns the newswire?
------------------------------------------------------------

> Introducing yourself by calling us "shameful"
> seems pretty hostile to me. Diluting our newswire
> (yes, ours, did you think it grew out of the ground?
> do you think the neo-Nazi posts you hate so much
> will be hidden by little elves?) with "articles"
> complaining about editorial policy is an act
> of aggression. If it doesn't seem like it to you,
> keep looking until you figure it out.
> [...]
> This whole discussion belongs NOT on
> the damn newswire, it belongs
> on seattle-editorial at indymedia.org
-- (comments by an anonymous editor)

I believe the above is mistaken on several counts.  Yes the
editorial group has "ownership" of the newswire in the sense that
they are responsible for it and make the decisions that (for
better or worse) make it whatever it is.  But there is another
view which, I hope, corresponds to the views of at least some
editorial committee members: the newswire serves the masses (I
know that some of you are offended by my use of the word
"masses", but this is the word that best expresses what I want to
say) and the editorial group functions as _custodians_ of the
newswire--as a representative of the masses--who are, in a deeper
sense, the real "owners".  In this view the principles and
policies that guide the development of the newswire are not a
matter of the whim or caprice of the overworked editorial
group--but rather represents a serious responsibility which
requires _encouraging_ criticism from readers.

Second, it is hardly clear from your site design and layout that
the seattle editorial list is the place to engage editors (my
previous email outlines a concrete proposal to make the editorial
list more visible and accessible to readers).  If we accept the
(hopefully not too strange) idea that readers and users of the
site should play a major role in determining its principles and
policies and future direction--then it would naturally follow
that readers should have an easily visible link that would allow
them to follow the discussion--and contribute to it.  Based on
the current design of the site: the obvious place for this is the
newswire.

Gentry, on October 19, made a suggestion that the "Shameful
fruits" thread be placed in the center column because:
(1) it would be a good way to increase traffic to the site and
(2) it would provide a good forum for public accountability

This was immediately opposed by "typist at speakeasy" as "too
much navel gazing".

This "navel gazing" argument would typically be used at any
mainstream bourgeois news service.  The paper "USA Today",
for example, would not run an article outlining different
opinions concerning how the paper should be run (ie: "Fred thinks
we are going too far in being shameless boosters of war on Iraq
while Jim thinks we are not going far enough") because such
discussion would not be "news".  A bourgeois news service
maintains a strict segregation between the product ("the news")
and the process ("the clash of views/principles concerning what
is news").  Bourgeois news services maintain this segregation for
many reasons--including making clear to the masses that they will
never be anything other than passive consumers--and should not
ever even think that they have a role to play in determining what
is "news".  The best example of this is the Fox News slogan: "We
report. You decide".

But isn't Indymedia supposed to be different than these kinds of
bourgeois news services?  Isn't Indymedia supposed to run in
accord with different kinds of principles?

I believe that Gentry's argument for putting the "Shameful
fruits" thread in the center column is correct and "typist at
speakeasy" is mistaken.  Increased traffic is good.  Public
accountability is good.  (And these two things go together--the
increased public accountability will help to create increased
traffic.)  The "navel gazing" argument is an argument for
"professionalism".  But professional journalism in this country
is, with rare exception, not something to be proud of.

------------------------------------------------------------
Localism represents a retreat from the goal
of providing an alternative news service
------------------------------------------------------------

> If anyone's prepending "seattle." in front of "indymedia.org"
> while looking for news about Palestine, perhaps they
> should reconsider their research strategy.

I disagree.  One of the things that was exciting about Indymedia
as it developed was that there were all these _different_ centers
run by different people that each determined their own policies
concerning how they should be run and what was considered "news".
So instead of there being one group of people of people who would
function as gatekeepers--there would be a many more diverse and
distributed groups of people.  Despite the "rundundancy" of
multiple news centers reporting (often) on the same
events--activists liked this concept because of the principle of
"not putting all your eggs in one basket".  If one group of
gatekeepers ended up with their heads in places that cannot be
reached by sunlight (and let's face it--this happens within the
progressive movement more often than we would like) there would
be many _other_ groups that would prove reliable and maintain the
principle of providing the news that the corporations don't want
us to know.

But now a very different concept has taken hold.  Instead of
there being multiple, independent, redundant centers each
responsible for providing a comprehensive set of news items (or
at least a sampling that attempts to be more representative of
comprehensive than the bourgeois media) we have a
centralized/feudal system: the Seattle IMC reports mainly on
events in Seattle, the Atlanta IMC reports mainly on events in
Atlanta, and the head IMC reports on events in Palestine or
elsewhere.

But then what happens if the head IMC fails to give attention to
important news (or analysis) of events in Palestine?  Where is
the redundancy if the single gatekeeper fails?

And it has failed.

> I would like to see an antiwar portal such that
> the article "Bush gives Palestinians a Road Map
> to Oblivion" occupies the center column.
-- Ben (from the "Shameful fruits" thead)

An anonymous editor replied:
> All the peace plans that have been publicized by
> the establishment for the last 35 years have been
> bullshit. You know that, I know that. More bullshit
> is not necessarily news.
>
> Recent feature stories on Palestine in the center
> column at http://indymedia.org/ have included:

(this was followed by a list of nine news items on Palestine
posted over the last ten months at www.indymedia.org)

I looked at all nine of these news items.  Guess what?  Unlike
the "Road Map to Oblivion" article, none of these news items
explained or even referenced one of the most basic and
fundamental facts essential to understanding the tactics used by
imperialism (and its Israeli client state) against the
Palestinian people: imperialism is attempting to engineer a
_civil war_ among the Palestinian people.

Some people would consider this an important analysis because it
helps us to understand a lot of the scattered news stories that
we hear coming from the region.  The Israeli parliament has said
it is ok to kill Arafat (he is a "terrorist").  We have all heard
that.  Many progressives respond by saying that, no, it is not ok
to kill Arafat (he is not a "terrorist").  But what many
progressive people do not know is _why_ the Israeli parlianment
made such a decision: because Arafat refused to initiate a
fratricidal civil war amongst the Palestinian people.  Arafat is
a murderous thug who has assassinated many progressive
Palestinian activists.  US imperialism and its Israeli client
state have no problem with Arafat being a murderous thug--as long
as he acted as _their_ murderous thug (to paraphrase what FDR
reportedly said about Somoza).  But Arafat refused to carry out
his orders to help engineer a savage and bloody civil war.  That
is why the Israeli parliament authorized his assassination.

Now some may disagree with this analysis (I think this
analysis is pretty solid myself).  But I think that Indymedia
readers should have an opportunity to read it and make up their
own minds.

But where will readers see this analysis on Indymedia?

The nine articles over ten months on www.indymedia.org did not
present this analysis.  Most of the www.indymedia.org articles on
Palestine were simple news.  Israel bombed Syria.  Guess what?  I
already knew that Israel bombed Syria from reading the
_bourgeois_ news.  How about a place where I can find the
thoughtful and well-researched analysis that will always be
filtered out of the bourgeois news?

One of these nine articles _did_ contain a _link_ to another
article (by Edward Said, reposted from Counterpunch) which
contained a single reference to the possibility of a civil war
(calling this possibility a "gleam in the eye" of Israeli
military officers).

And where was this article from Counterpunch reposted?  At the
New York Indymedia site:
http://www.nyc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=75720

If New York had hidden (or segregated) this article then it would
have simply been that much more difficult for activists to learn
about the central thrust of imperialist tactics in this part of
the middle east at this time.

Such a Palestinian civil war would be a huge tragedy for the
Palestinian people.  Both sides of this civil war (Arafat's
Palestinian authority and the Islamic nationalists of Hamas)
would be led by corrupt factions tied to monied interests.
The winner in such a war would be imperialism--and the
loser in such a civil war would be the Palestinian people.  And I
believe it would be a mistake to consider such a civil war
inevitable.  We should be doing all we can to alert progressive
people everywhere to what is going on so that it becomes more
difficult for imperialism to engineer such a murderous bloodbath.

Of course we have another option.  We can choose to hide (or
segregate, a halfway method of hiding--because each additional
click to reach a story reduces the audience by a factor of ten)
the story.  That will solve a lot of pesky problems.

But my view is that making such a choice would indeed be
shameful.

Sincerely,
Ben Seattle
----//-// 25.Oct.2003