Although this is not an opinion piece from one deeply enmeshed with IMCs (Independent Media Centers) I still would like to share some personal ideas as an occasional reader on how your relatively new phenomenon can grow. A major reason that IMC is potentially important is because it is a medium that allows a person who wants to write a story or opinion piece do so (in a general news or current events venue as “alternative” news). There are several sources of alternative news on the Internet (alternet.org, mediamatters.org) but few, if any, seem to allow a regular citizen person to “Become the News” by writing news or opinion. Supposedly however IMCs allows this reality to happen—that is some actual semblance toward the democratic ideal.

Of course many opinions may not necessarily worth reading because not all peoples are intelligent and informed in any society—yet they may still feel a need to write anyway. Equally one can expect that such an enterprise would attract misinformation, propagandist lies, or false leads, infiltration of political agendas, etc., but the answer is that hopefully enough people write quality information exposing the BS (and not “censorship” of the merely controversial which can and does happen). See www.breakfornews.com divorce from www.rumormillnews.com. Some oversight is then probably necessary due to human element and insincere motive (hate mail, psychotic musings, rantings that repeat ad nauseum, etc. but it seems some stories are “hidden” for merely political reasons even on some IMC sights?).

Nevertheless the idea that an average Joe or Jill can become involved is very noble. Yet it seems that there are some built-in structural restraints that are hampering the growth of IMC from evolving to anywhere close to its potential—why? For example, given the fact that IMCs are in many major cities of the US and elsewhere around the world, why do relatively few people write to, or read from, these sights (per capita)? Here are some observations:

First, some IMC web sites (many) do not seem to do enough at their home pages to educate casual browsers about self-publishing--the importantly unique feature of IMC (news making by everyday people and activists). Yes they all have a “PUBLISH” or “Post a story” click on hypertext link to the process page to do it (assuming casual browsers have a clue) but there is little apparent marketing promotion that informs current browsers or potential consumers (repeat customers) to realize: “Eureka! I can publish ‘my’ story or my opinion here !!”

Second, ome of the hypertext links to “Archive” or “Newswire” buttons are small so as to be trivialized as rather nonexistent in importance or accessibility. Few casual browsers then get an idea that “Archive” or “Newswire” versus “Feature story” has much to do with anything important (in respect to what is presented on the main page). Half the population does not know what the word “archive” means in general let alone how IMC intends it in an information sense. Therefore many articles that are posted are not read much by those people who casually browse these sights—since they are not aware of the amount of writings hidden in the background. IMC people have to decide if they want relatively small “cults” who have the inside information or whether they want a process of a wider alternative communication between people besides the corporate news. Right now it seems it is more like priest cults of insiders who have the clue but no real mass appeal for those general looking for other sources of “quality” news, debate and ideas (one would think practically every major college in the country would have a sight especially since some will soon be eligible for draft—according to the new edition of Greg Palast book the “Best Democracy Money Can Buy” our current President will get the next election due to state manipulation of voter records—so then campuses want to activate BEFORE summer break not after?). IMC people need to decide if the “archives” are going to remain more or less secret society stuff or whether “The People” are going to be invited into its catacombs so that there is actually some readership. If you all decide to remain just a cult or a series of competing cults you will never affect the type of social change you claim you really want.

Third, instead what people generally see on these home pages are “feature” stories that do not seem to change much (dated) so it then seems to casual browsers: “There is not a lot going on regarding this website—I’ll checkout something else.” These seemingly internally selected feature stories that “hog” most of the home page (versus the few words of a title allowed to the self published person) gives the impression that the control is still by some status quo that ain’t doing much new. One thinks: “Hey aren’t these the same feature stories I saw last week and the week before?—hell this looks like a dead or dying website.” Really how many are to bother with “half titles” (can’t even get a full title listed!) to the right in some “monochrome” or sepia as if to compete for the eye with colored pictures and feature articles that hog 3/4ths the screen? So likely many potential browsers do not bother to revisit these websites because other websites are appear more active with “new” obvious postings daily; whereas the “features” monopoly moves along like a dinosaur’s fossil.

I’m not trying to put anyone down or get people to feel bad. I appreciate what all you people have done. I’m saying it the way I see it because I would like your activities to be enriched and more to have the opportunity to read people’s contributions. I mean why would people want to spend there energy and time getting published if browsers are not readily aware, or not readily invited to find out about what writers have recently contributed because they have scrolled away and are now more or less hidden away on back pages? Certainly IMC was not meant to become just some de facto low circulation rag for the alienated, or “too” independent, or journalist college major playground for people who just wanted space and practice? Certainly it was not created just for some to bitch or whine with frothic diatribe, to help with emotional spasms of the moment as therapeutic release, or a diary of eternal hostility? You want to communicate with others?

Checkout www.whatreallyhappened.com to see how most entries gets a readable title (idea) and a summary (marketing) so as to give some advertising attention on the main page of most stories. Note it is obvious stories are posted daily. This is a good format.

Fourth, some of the pieces printed on the archives are printed on print that is small and then uninviting. Some editors tend to think that size for print does not matter but the fact is that it matters greatly. Do an experiment if you doubt me. Offer potential readers two unknown newspapers with different print size (controlled study) and you will find that size is a user friendly matter. Yet it is not like people do this choosing consciously, that is they do not say to themselves: “the print is too small and makes me squint to the point of headaches,” rather the mind operates in its usual unconscious manner of being estranged with too much too soon complexity and simply shuts off—like she says sorry: “I have a headache maybe another day?” Checkout www.Antiwar.com and contemplate if these stories are more inviting (and therefore read more) because they show consideration to offer some generous print size. Like men make no passes at women who wear glasses neither do the masses read squinty print—it is too demanding. Decide how much of a readership you really want. Lots of stories in small print do not necessarily get read. Less sometimes is more.

Fifth, IMCs might consider some mechanism of publishing some important stories across all relevant sights so as to inform and share good writings from one city or state or country with others. Why squander resources? Do not the Powers That Be share on their syndicates? Why then should not the underdogs take advantage of the best writings on each sight? Good writers should be encouraged to share their ideas across boundaries. Some mechanism should be considered for quick posting across shared spaces.

Sixth, an important point to also consider is tolerance of opinions that don’t seem to fall in the rubric of “the left” as if “independent” media is about conforming to some politically correct doctrine that has to believe be in favor of socialism or radicalism or anarchy or what ever “-ism” doctrine or dogma one wants to presume as the best religion. The truly free and independent are not married to collectivist dogmas of any kind--be they on the right, middle, left, or upstairs or down. Every major campus should have its own IMC and not just for the journalist majors.

Finally, and equally important to writing stories (alternative media specialists might seriously consider) The People’s need to write opinion pieces—now just scrawny little letters that seldom get published in Corporate News. Here then is a “real” potential growth area in journalism--the public’s right to write opinion pieces. Review the following letter as an example that argues this last point well:

Since when does main stream newspapers practice democracy in their Letters to the Editor practice? [Opinion piece by Sue Smith to be indexed as news media censorship; muffled voices of the public; disrespect for newspaper readers; Letters to the Editor whittled away or trash-canned; why are so many letters not published; and why is there not more space allocated for readers in today’s newsprint?]

How many thousands of Letters to the Editor never get published each day in the United States? The answer is way too many. To get a letter published as a layperson in most of the daily and weekly newspapers is a rare thing. To get even one published in a whole year, it seems, is a major accomplishment. One’s voice as a citizen, or as the supposed professionals of the major media seem to act, as a plebe, is often muffled apparently with little scruple.

Yet newspaper editorial staff and owners of the corporate media tend to give the impression that they represent The People. In fact their major claim to fame often is that they are the people’s or society’s watchdogs and therefore they deserve and need freedom of speech and print yet how ironic? Yet it is a truism that one major reason that the U.S. Court system has so often sided with free speech for the media is because it is presumed that media spokes persons speaks for the good of all responsible peoples, irrespective of class or opinion? However when one considers the amount of print space a typical city newspaper allocates to “The People” in the many pages of newsprint published every day one can reasonably conclude that The People get the crumbs. There is far more space allocated to the marketing of bras for women.

Consider a major newspaper in practically any major city, it does not matter which you focus since so many are precisely equivalent in policy and practice, with say a readership of say 300,000 people. This newspaper with such a large readership may on a typical day print a mere five to fifteen Letters to the Editor and usually in seriously less than one page of print. Does this seem like anything close to democracy or representation for 300,000 readers? It hardly does. Does this seem like The People are considered important by those that work for news corporations? Consider, for example, how many professionals live in that same community, other that news people, or those that are college graduates that read, at least parts of the local paper on a daily basis, how is it that they warrant so little space on which to get their opinions aired? No wonder many learn not to communicate, or give up the practice of even bothering to write.

Then when a person of the public is finally selected for publication likely his or her letter is confined to a few mere paragraphs! On occasion a letter may get more space such as a few extra paragraphs, but hardly more than that. Yet a true intellect knows that at times it takes detail, argumentation, and elaboration to make a plausible case for a particular point, particularly if it is not trite, leading to a viable and cogent generalization or conclusion. Thought does require some analysis of complexity at times but perhaps those of editorial boards feel that only news columnists, selected professionals, and editors themselves have the capacity for complex thought and argumentation?

Perhaps what we citizens face here is an attitude on the part of the Powers that Be, known as the self-dubbed Fourth Estate? It then seems the masses are really quite trivial in the scheme of things as such an attitude would then only warrant a smidgen of space for those letter writers who do get printed? This tradition would then be allowed to continue if editors felt that one needs certain specific credentials and titles to be a legitimate voice, hence the egos of professional columns.

Furthermore it seems that some editorial staff chosen to review “Letters to the Editor” think and act as if it is their prerogative and duty to chop a person’s letter to sight-bits? There seems to be some standard in the news industry that a published letter must be cut down to size as if to put a person in his place. Like in the work world in general some people with any kind of lever feel they must play their little authoritarian game, or in the case of newspapers, reject a letter completely because it is thought too long? Is it that the royalty could not have this, mere readers thinking they had a right to some ink? Apparently you must fit the station assigned to you. You see the word arrogance comes from Latin root ‘rogare’ meaning to ask and what right does a citizen reader have asking to be recognized in more than her or his allotted two to four paragraphs every one or two years?

Granted there is bad writing, redundancy, unnecessary tangents, ad hominem attacks, vociferous spewing of prejudices, bad ideas including crazy ideas, etc. that justify elimination, but editors seem to censor ideas for other reasons. Granted any editorial staff can give the impression that they are printing a sampling of the diversity of ideas that represent all or most relevant perspective, yet it is not too far fetched to say that a typical paper may hardly publish 10% of the letters it receives. What happens to the 90% we “The People” do not see and therefore can not think about? What accountability is there that the supposedly fair presses are not in fact censoring some very important or controversial ideas that are worth reading and thinking about? The people might consider thinking about how devious these tactics could be since a letter can simply end up in the trash can?

Equally, while we have Joe Q, Citizen who hardly ever gets published we can expect that a typical newspaper editorial board will have their ideas published EVERY DAY OR EVERY WEEK, depending on if it is a weekly or daily paper. Think about the contrast: Citizen Joe gets a few paragraphs every other blue moon whereas the editorial staff, generally the same group of talking heads, gets published every day of the year! Not only that they give themselves, in there relatively small number, plenty of space to make their opinions known, often as least as much space as the cumulative citizenry of 300,000. On top of that they pick the space of the left hand of the opinion pages where the eye begins, and they allocate to themselves BIGGER print size. Lastly, they do NOT have to put their names behind the editorials as scribed yet they require that you reveal to your name, city, and telephone number if you want to be considered.

Still this is not to argue that the editorial board should reduce their amount of space but rather they should play fair with the masses of people who don’t experience their voices taken seriously. News people do generally study a lot of news discourse and naturally they would have opinions, but is it equally true that these illustrious personages have biases and seeming distortions of perspective, are they so perfect of mind as to appear above others? Can the divorce themselves from their particular -ism of zealotry and fanaticism? Hardly they can, rather they wear blinders as do all and some are amazingly apparent.

It is a rather curious thing that infrequently you read an editorial that actually quotes another information source such as an author of a book, website or another paper, unless that report happens to be the object of the news? That these seemingly secret committees, not identified soapbox preachers, who assume to write competently on any and every subject, yet who surprisingly seldom deign to run for a public office themselves, have done all or most of their original thinking? Certainly you do not often see a bibliography or list of websites to consult suggesting these non-specified intellects have had to resort to the mere human enterprise of studying other people’s thoughts prior to forming their own opinions. Yet is that not what so much of news gathering and learning is all about, basing one’s ideas off the backs of others? For example, how many ideas have been confiscated from unpublished Letters to the Editor, we will never know? How many letters have instigated thought and provocation that have remained unacknowledged?

How is it that many news media people talk about the ideals of democracy and representational government when they do not practice it? Is democracy simply about voting? It hardly is. One would think an even more important function of participation would be the exchange of information, questions, and ideas. One would hope that those that vote have had a few pertinent thoughts about for whom or what they voted, as they participate in the process of informational exchange as equals before all. But exchanging ideas requires a willingness to listen to others. Mainstream media outlets seem to prefer that they decide which ideas are expressed. Whereas our apparent readership function is mostly to evaluate information based on those limitations and not of those missing or dissentient ideas. Perhaps corporate media can only provide a token of democratic participation like a vote for an elected official only provides an illusion of representation, since many Senators, Representatives, Governors, and Presidents are far too owned, selling one’s soul, by special interest groups?

Another problem with the status quo of Letters to the Editor is that if a newspaper declines or refuses to print a perspective on something discussed in its paper, most other papers will not touch that perspective either because it is not is relationship to their newspaper For example, if a regular big shot columnist of a big shot newspaper says something stupid, and they do write stupid things occasionally, in a particular paper, and you letter criticizing it is censored, the newspaper down the street will not likely pick it up since you are trying to criticize X columnist who does not appear in paper B or C. Therefore with this protectionism scratching of backs, the stupid statements do not get addressed and the big shot’s ego grows bigger and he or she is never is challenged to grow, more importantly the readers are deprived of the grace of other perspectives. Therefore any forum ought to be open to discuss any news opinion whose influence affects any particular area or community, especially the hot shot syndicated columnists that end up having disproportionate and droning influence.

What America needs is a forum of voter opinions not controlled by those substantially paid to publish and deeply entrenched in the status quo. This would be different from a blog or bulletin board for special subjects, but it would be an all purpose forum for The People to discuss any important current affairs issue and to share opinions across boundaries. Of course news reporting is needed but equally as important are discussions about the news reported or not reported. Granted, it would be disingenuous to not acknowledge the great and momentous work of the main stream media people do, for the contribute a great deal of insight and work, but The People deserve a right to speak out for themselves, as opposed to being patronized by those who seem to think they are the only relevant experts on most matters. Our opinions all matter. Many people may be ill informed but this is a participatory process, not just learning to get literate. It is crucial that Independent Media as it is evolving take steps to have active forums on opinion at various geographical levels: local city/county, state, regional, national, and international. Equally, excellent opinion pieces, as well as articles written ought be considered for multiple site distribution based on the merits of the individual writings, not like hacks that are guaranteed their considerable special space privileges weekly in various papers. Websites ought actively practice postings from the network at large, this is not only ideal, within reason, it is necessary that the best writings get the widest distribution, similar to what syndicates provide, even if you do not get paid. Hopefully, Indymedia will see to it that this practice evolves so as to provide true competition and interest building for diversity, it is time to tap into the alienation of readers and would be participants. Still, it does not mean that anything goes and dumbness warrants a place in quality spaces, that are public. Sorry but it took more than a few quick paragraphs to say that. [End of letter]

Independent media could take advantage of the non-democratic reality of mainstream news papers offering participation with a few crumbs to the citizens. In fact it seems that their ought be newspapers with nothing but (long) letters and opinion pieces written by non-paid Joe Q citizens that could compete with the likes of USA Today IMCs could also capitalize on college campuses if they wanted to—that is many students (not just journalist majors—imagine student organizations) have a need to practice writing their stuff. Next fall is the next election.

Amen. Permission to copy, email, download, rewrite, repost, etc.