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

[typist at speakeasy.net]

Ben, Is it your position that all the Palestine Israeli posts should stay on the newswire?

You came to our meeting a few weeks back with what I felt was a legitimate complaint -- hide some of the crap on the newswire  -- we have been wrestling with how to do that.  There seems to be no middle ground either it's open and everything goes up.  Or it's editted and we're accused of being nazis or  bourgeois.

When Gentry mentioned the Shamefull Fruits piece, it was to get a feel for what people thought of it.  Articles we're excited about get submitted directly as feature proposals, (FP) in subject line.  *Ideas* get aired in email with an exchange of opinion.  I'm of the opinion that the Shamefull Fruit post is an insider argument and not worth using up valuable center space.  Others supported Gentry's idea of making it a feature.  Should it be proposed as an FP, it would probably get enough support or at least no opposition to make it to the center column.

Judy






> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Seattle [mailto:bensai at pix.org]
> Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 04:54 PM
> To: seattle-editorial at indymedia.org
> Subject: [Seattle-editorial] 	(1) Learning to work together, (2) the content of localism
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Seattle-editorial mailing list
> Seattle-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/seattle-editorial
>