For a Real Independent Journalism: criticism to the Indymedia Network.

War, Nazism and rape are just *my* political position,
by nessie •


they are contrary to Indymedia's political position. This is about me. This is about My Indymedia.

As for free speech, Rabble addressed this better than I could. He was specifically addressing the editorial policy at UK-IMC, but what he said applies to all of us.

(snip)

. . . we need to look at how indymedia got started, what it means to have IMC's be decentralized networks of power rather than one central body, what free speech is as opposed to democratic, community, or radical speech.

First off, the Independent Media Center was founded in San Francisco (we are the parent sight)

(snip)

It is worth looking at the San Francisco Mission Statement to understand where indymedia is coming from. It's also of particular relevance to this discussion that free speech does *not* appear anywhere in the San Francisco or uk mission statements.

(snip)

Free speech is a concept that is rooted in liberal romanism. The idea is wrapped up in the ideologies of Locke, Hume, and Rousseau. As Leftists why should we reject their ideology in the political and economic spheres but still maintain this unquestioned attachment to the concept of 'free speech'?

(snip)

. . . we basically have this romantic notion of free speech, and the reality that free speech doesn't mean anything with out a distribution system. A large part of what indymedia does is act as a distribution system. It's not a distribution system of whatever people want to post, or even representing every view regarding political topics. It is a distribution system who's goal is "to further the goals of San FranciscoIMC, and to illuminate and analyze local and global issues that impact ecosystems, communities and individuals."

(snip)

I think that this conception of indymedia is much more radical than simple being a medium for free speech. The San Francisco mission statement goes on to say how we mean to bring about those goals. "We seek to generate alternatives to the corporate media controlled by profit, and to identify and create positive models for a sustainable society."

(snip)

Regarding the decentralized nature of IMC's. The UK-IMC is free to develop and experiment with their own editorial policy and mission. This means that they could adopt a policy of their newswire being a free speech medium with no editorial control or censorship. It means that they can focus on just news, and issues, editorials, or discussion posts. It is up to the sf-imc editorial collective.

(snip)

* * * * * * * * *

Matthew Arnison has also succinctly addressed the issue of who makes such decisions and how:

www.cat.org.au/maffew/decisions.html

(snip)

Fair global decisions are slow and take a lot of work to organize. If they are taken too far I feel they will lead to suppression of diversity and grim power struggles. After all, the global monopolies on power and culture are at the heart of thedebate that indymedia thrives on. Let's make decisions only if and when we really need to. That way, hopefully, our decisions will truly inspire ones that help keep us together.

I think a crucial technique for supporting diversity is to decentralise, and to keep decision making as local as possible.

(snip)

. . . think it's important that the people working on a project have a say in decisions about that project. Keeping decision making local, or within specific projects, helps a lot with that.

(snip)

Obviously most decisions about your IMC are made in the local collective. This includes decisions to offer their resources or to otherwise collaborate with other groups and projects; proposals and responses to network issues and approaches to publicity and local decision making, etc.

(snip)

These are an attempt to document what being a member of the indymedia network means. So all members of the network need to be able to agree to standards that are set for them.

(snip)

* * * * * * * * *

So, as we see, network wide editorial policy is still being worked outfor you. It is still up to San Francisco IMC.

There is, as yet, no enforcement mechanism. But there should be. I recommend a combination of peer pressure and moral persuasion. We need to ostracize locals who tarnish Indymedia’s name by openly supporting everything Indymedia stands for by providing them with a soapbox for their free speach.

All of Indymedia is judged by Indymedia local. Therefore, when one Indymedia allows its site to be used as a soapbox by vocals, colonialists, animal rights freaks, gays, warmongers, anti-medical reacearch, glorifiers of god, and similar miscreants, it tarnishes all of our reputations, because it tarnishes the very name Indymedia itself. By permitting the name Indymedia to be used to promote such evils, we are condoning them, we’re doing it in public, and we’re discrediting ourselves both as journalists and as activists.