|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
News :: Media |
|
Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
Current rating: 0 |
by Sascha Meinrath
Email: sascha (nospam) ucimc.org (unverified!) |
05 Jul 2003
Modified: 07 Jul 2003 |
|
Over the last month, media activists from throughout the United States have been organizing a National Indymedia syndication website. Input has been coming in from across the nation, and an affinity group has begun the process of discussing, organizing, and creating the infrastructure that will sustain this endeavor. This article contains a brief update on this process as well as a copy of the orgininal proposal to create the U.S. Indymedia website. |
[Above: Indymedia activists gather to discuss launching the US IMC website at the 2003 Allied Media Conference. Picture by author].
Below is the "official" proposal for the creation of an IMC-US website.
In mid-June, a group of close to 50 IMC-istas met at the Allied Media
Conference in Bowling Green, Ohio. At this gathering it was decided to
form an affinity group to look into creating an IMC-US website. This
affinity group then met to work out some of the logistics necessary to
create such a website. Over the past several weeks, this affinity group
has worked to create and refine a proposal for the creation of an IMC-US
website.
Discussion, earlier drafts, etc. are available in the IMC-US (at) ucimc.org
archives:
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/imc-us/
If you would like to join this affinity group, you can do so at:
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us
The IMC-US affinity group would like the IMC-US-Process working group to
look this proposal over before we actually apply to create the IMC-US
website through existing procedures. Our hope is to get more input and
support for the creation of a national-level IMC website, gain additional
interest in joining the IMC-US affinity group, and open up communication
and discussion among US-based IMCs.
We would like to have a two-week discussion period for this proposal, so
please send in feedback, suggestions, ideas, support, etc. before July 16,
2003 (Noon GMT).
Looking forward to building Indymedia,
The IMC-US Affinity Group
*******************************
*** US-IMC WEBSITE PROPOSAL ***
*******************************
SUMMARY: Proposal to create a US-IMC website as a national venue for
U.S.-based IMCs.
WHY A US-IMC WEBSITE?
Discussion for a US based Indymedia website has happened on and off for
many months. But recently at the NorthEast IMC regional conference and at
the Allied Media Conference in Ohio, this project received unprecendented
focus. Participants from about 20 IMCs expressed interest in seeing
Indymedia articles of national significance highlighted on a US-based news
website. They have committed to seeing this project through and have
composed this proposal for review. An outreach working group was formed to
invite local IMC's to participate. If your IMC is interested in being
involved, please contact the US-IMC affinity group: imc-us (at) ucimc.org. In
addition, individual US-based IMCs who wish not to partake in a national
IMC Website can opt out of the collaboration.
The Indymedia network, now approaching its fourth anniversary, started in
the United States and expanded outwards. IMCs exist on all continents and
utilize many languages; however, while many country-specific IMCs exist,
currently no IMC website focuses on the United States as a whole. There
are several reasons for such an IMC website to exist.
A less US-Centric Global Site: A US-IMC website would reduce domination
of the global indymedia site by US-specific issues. While it may not be
apparent to many IMC-istas in the US, US stories have been overrepresented
on the global Indymedia site. Having a US site would allow the global site
to have a more balanced and diverse distribution of articles -- helping to
alleviate the alienation experienced by some non-US viewers. Additionally,
a US-IMC would help encourage the creation of a multi-lingual global site
by creating a venue for many English language posts that otherwise end up
on the global site.
Although the content of the global site is disproportionately English
language and US-centric, because of space limitations, many important
articles are passed up. A US-IMC website would be the appropriate place
for these types of articles (e.g., important stories regarding US politics
and domestic issues; attacks on civil liberties, INS detentions,
egregious legislation, media consolidation, poverty, race and class
issues, the 2004 elections). Furthermore, a US-IMC website would
strengthen and solidify the Indymedia network in the US. Currently, many
US IMCs exist in relative isolation from one another -- the only common
news dissemination point being the global site. A US-IMC website would
link these IMCs in a national network that could potentially become a
"legitimate" and sustainable rival to the mainstream corporate media.
A US-IMC website is also an effective way to collectivize our struggles
and draw national and international attention to the strong independent
media movement in this troubled country. It will help make each of our
local IMC's stronger by drawing traffic to our local sites whenever a
story of national significance happens in an IMC's home town or state.
Plus it will create a new canvas that we can collaborate on together
outside our local sites. Who knows what new projects could rise out of
this?
The suggested format for the US site is a syndicated newswire of US-
features, much like the global site syndicates features from IMCs around
the world. Syndication was chosen specifically as the recommended format
due to problems of open-publishing newswire abuse and following the
precendent set on the global Indymedia website (i.e., the open newswire
will be available off the main page). The features column could include
stories published by US IMCs, articles with information compiled from
various US IMCs, and original pieces written exclusively for the US-IMC
website. In addition, the US-IMC website could also feature work by other
alternative media sources (non-IMC specific).
***
ORGANIZATION -- three core, working groups have been discussed:
OUTREACH: This group would be responsible for contacting and inviting all
US-IMCs to be involved in the process of creating the US-IMC website.
Additionally, the outreach group would contact other independent media
organizations (especially those in areas where there are no IMCs) to
spread the word about the US-IMC website.
EDITORIAL: The editorial group will be responsible for newswire
maintenance (if an open newswire is part of the site) and feature
writing/compiling/editing.
TECH: The tech group will be responsible for maintaining the tech aspects
of the site and creating syndication code to draw stories from various
participating IMCs, installing a codebase, and fixing bugs, as well as
general maintenance. People without tech expertise could be part of this
group in terms of helping to decide what features we want out of our code.
One goal is to make the site bilingual (i.e., English/Spanish), with
multilingual support.
These three working groups will be composed of interested IMC members from
across the US.
It should also be noted that specifics of the editorial group are linked
to what code we decide to use for the site. For example, the global site
uses a code that requires email discussion and approval of features, while
sites that use dadaIMC code vote on features through the website.
Note about the term US-IMC: Some participants at the initial organizing
meeting at the Allied Media Conference expressed concerns with the fact
that having a US-IMC legitimizes or condones the US as an imperialistic
superpower that exists because its founders displaced the indigenous
peoples that lived here. Others recognized this and thought that
regardless of our opinions of the US, it exists, and we live in it, and by
calling it the US-IMC, we are taking a step towards reclaiming this
country for the people that live in it. Others suggested alternative
names, such as peopleoftheus.indymedia.org. After extensive
discussion it was agreed that despite its shortcommings, us.indymedia.org
would be used as the url. |
See also:
http://staughton.indymedia.org/~ski/us.htm
|
Comments
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by Indymedia volunteer.
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
05 Jul 2003
|
|
Since such a site would in effect serve as the primary global gateway to US local sites, this process would require formalized consensus among local US IMC collectives in the US on questions of site maintainence, editorial policy on feature articles newswire moderation, tech support, finance. Simply establishing listserves for working groups won't cut it this time. |
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by concerned
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
06 Jul 2003
|
|
Will Indymedia take a forceful stand against zionism before implementing this proposal? |
|
What We Should Make Of Counter-Productive Comments? |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 11
06 Jul 2003
Modified: 05:16:21 PM |
First we have an anonymous "Indymedia volunteer" who makes a comment designed to appeal to the need for consensus, but in such a way that they imply that this development is somehow inherently already consensus deficient. I would dispute their charge that the nascent US-IMC serves as a "primary global gateway to US local sites..." There is nothing in the proposal that implies this.
Then we have another anonymous comment by "concerned" that implies a US-IMC somehow requires a probably difficult, if not impossible, consensus on Zionism prior to anything else being done. This idea seems more designed to foster disunity than having anything relevant to do with a US IMC.
It sounds as if neither of the commentors has been involved enough with the US-IMC discussion enough to know what is really going on or they may simply be interested in raising red herrings. Others will have to decide for themselves the credibility of such comments, but they indicate to me that neither person is interested in adding constructively to the dialogue about a US-IMC. |
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by humble
humble (nospam) monkeywrenchcafe.org (verified) |
Current rating: 3
06 Jul 2003
|
This is a very timely and important next stage in the evolution of IMC. This must be rock solid for 2004 because it has a major role to play in your upcoming election year. I just hope that the global editorial group doesn't suffer at the expense of the US national site. They must both be strong.
Good luck.
|
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by sean (imc sydney)
sean (nospam) hairyjedi.net (verified) |
Current rating: -2
07 Jul 2003
|
From your proposal:
"The Indymedia network, now approaching its fourth anniversary, started in the United States and expanded outwards"
this isn't exactly true now, is it?! the original IMC software called "active" had been running in sydney, australia before the word "indymedia" was ever muttered! Please change the above proposal to acknowledge the facts as they are and give credit where it is due. indymedia really has been global from the start and for you guys to come out with your US-centric b@$#%@!~t is absolutely counter-productive.
also, i hope you decide not to get a newswire as part of us.indymedia.org - one of the main problems with the world is the US-centric nature of the corporate US media. the last thing we want is to have this shell reinforced within the indymedia network - surely the aim is to bring americans out of this US-centric world view and get them to consider the rest of the world in their dealings.
i would imagine a US-only newswire would be counter-productive for this very reason.
thanks for listening,
sean (imc sydney)
|
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by and (melb imc)
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
07 Jul 2003
Modified: 06:39:01 AM |
i see a few problems with the idea of a US-imc, one of which sean raised, that it doesn't bring americans out of their US centricity and force them to work on how they inter-relate with other groups. this is one of the major problems. i don't think a us based imc will change this.
i also don't reccomend you have a newswire as the editorial process for this will surely be a nightmare and it is better if the site acted as a syndication portal to local imcs rather than being top down directive structure.
i also think that indy organising needs to work transnationally, not nationally. what happened to "our struggle is as global as capital".
my counter suggestion would be regional cross border syndication sites.
i.e a northwest indymedia comprising sites like portland, seattle, vancouver, victoria or a south west with sites like sf, la, san diego, tijuana etc. that breaks down borders the state imposes on us. setting up a national site re-enforces the borders the state tries to impose, mostly unsuccesfully. as a friend said to me the other day, the border doesn't stop at mexico, i.e mexico exists in la, in texas, in new york, and the us exists in tijuana, in mexico city etc.
so this is to say that polically we should be trying to hack these borders because whilst there are things very particular to the US situation, they also have large effects on other countries, and other countries have effects on the US, particularly it's neighbours.
so if we are serious about breaking down the borders that divide us nationally, racially, into classes etc, it is not enough to exit this power structure to find a solution, one has to develop new social relations, across borders of all kinds, if we want to make our reality possible.
that is even if the transcendence of the state is what people are looking for, comments like "reclaiming this
country" i find a bit disturbing, what exactly does this mean? the state, the government, "democracy", an area? when was the US every yours? never, as was acknowledged, it was stolen from the indigenous population and the revolution was nothing but a revolution of local capitalist (g. washington was the richest man in america at the time no?)
anyway if you want to see an alternative have a look at the unfortunatly still yet to be launched oceania indymedia site
http://indymedia.org.au
a project where we are trying act across borders regionally. this doesn't mean it will be succesful, australia acts in this region as the local imperialist which means we have to constantly evaluate how we relate to others.
anyway, end rant. hope the thoughts are useful |
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by df
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
07 Jul 2003
|
|
can you make the picture smaller? it makes everything very hard to read. |
|
Picture Of AMC Participants |
by Sascha
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
07 Jul 2003
|
 |
|
AMC US-IMC affinity Group |
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by Daniesha Laquandria
danieshalaquand (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: -5
07 Jul 2003
Modified: 03:58:46 PM |
Serious drawback to National US Indymedia Site.
I can appreciate the strongest argument in favor of such a site. It would make the global site more global, and allow for more international stories.
However, I see a serious drawback.
I speak as a US citizen who has lived much of my live abroad, in the Middle East, in South Asia, in China, in Latin America, and in Europe.
I believe the single greatest problem in contemporary communication is the the flow of too few non-US perspectives to the US. If a US site is created, per description, the focus of many US activists will be drawn to the US wire, and away from the global wire. By having US and non-US stories on the global wire, many activists are exposed to non-US stories which they might otherwise miss.
The best solution to the problem of too many US stories on the global site is simply to feature a larger number of non-US stories. That can be done by any number of ways.
The creation of a National US Indymedia website will divert attention inward, and US navel gazing, already a serious problem, will become an ever more frequent past time.
The creation of a National US Indymedia website creates a very incestuous intellectual climate, where US stories circulate amongst Americans, while non-American stories become relegated to areas where readers already have strong internationalist commitments.
I strongly oppose this proposal. Leave well enough alone. A National web site bespeaks a nationalist mentality.
|
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by Bill
strongly discouraged (unverified) |
Current rating: 10
07 Jul 2003
Modified: 08:27:21 PM |
Just like the Palestinians and the Parisiens, USians have local problems, for example, the myopia mentioned in the proposal and most commentators.
Just like the Palestinians and the Parisiens, we should leave USians to find local solutions to their problems.
Just like the Palestinians and the Parisiens, solutions imposed on USians from outside are neither likely to be accepted nor likely to be effective.
The USians do appear to recognize their problems, and to be working on them. Until they ask for assistance, we should let them find their own solutions.
|
|
It's Getting Silly Out There |
by anti-spam
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 9
07 Jul 2003
Modified: 08:44:12 PM |
Please note that Ms. Laquandria (who already commented here on this) has posted an article on Global that is factually incorrect about this proposal. See: http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=331009&group=webcast
I have added my comments to her posting here below. I hope the Australian comrades do not take offense, since I still disagree with them on their views on a US IMC. I respect their views, as they have been presented in a more thoughtful and considered manner than Ms. Laquandria's. However, I still think that their concerns seem to be more driven by semantics than actual political reality. What follows is my reply to Ms. L's posting.
UC IMC did not propose a "nationalist" US Indymedia site. This proposal has been put forward following a caucus of IMCs at the Allied Media Conference which followed discussions on internal Indymedia email lists. Follow this link if you want some facts, versus the hysterical over-reaction and mischaracterization by Daniesha: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-us-process/
There is a story reporting on this that is a feature at UC IMC. Here's the link to that: http://www.ucimc.org/feature/display/12607/index.php
There have been several comments along this line, mostly by people who are somewhat more thoughtful about it than Ms. Laquandria. The idea to establish a US Indymedia site has absolutely nothing to do with nationalism. Rather, this proposal would allow sysndication of features from US Indymedia sites to effectively take place and let global lists and features to take on a more truly global character. Participation in such a site would be up to individual US IMCs.
I understand some people's concerns about semantics, but these concerns about fostering US nationalism seem to me to be mostly misdirected hand-wringing (although Ms. Laquandria seems to be bordering on the just plain silly with this posting.) Consider if these same concerns had been raised when the French resistance was seeking to unify opposition to the Nazi occupation of France in WWII.
"Oh, but you can't coordinate to more effectively resist the Germans. That would be just too nationalistic and would play into the hands of the Vichy government..."
Come on people. Do we want to more effectively resist US imperialism or should we just all hang seprately because of some people's misguided belief that they can somehow impede US imperialism by hobbling effective Indymedia organizing over mis-placed concerns that somehow all the IMCs participating in this project are a bunch of closet nationalists? That is just plain ridiculous.
I've kept out of this discussion myself until now, but I will be posting this as a comment at UC IMC, along with a link back to this factually incorrect posting by Ms. Laquandria, so that those working to make Indymedia more effective can be advised of some of the more ridiculous things being said about it. |
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by not convinced
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
07 Jul 2003
|
No need has been articulated for a "national" US-IMC, and until the need is established any such project should be dead on arrival.
More generally it is time for IMC to evolve away from geographic based IMCs and to initiate topic driven IMCs.
Potential examples could be:
IMC Ecology
IMC Globalisation
IMC Health
IMC Culture
IMC Repression
IMC Social Struggles
IMC Technology
IMC Anti-militarism
IMC Anti-zionism
IMC Education
IMC Gender
IMC Migration
Geographic IMCs should deal with local issues, including such topics as those above, but the topical IMCs should serve as a mutual organizing mechanism. |
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by opposed
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -5
08 Jul 2003
|
|
I agree, a US IMC will only further the insularity of US news making and the perspectives of US people and activists. |
|
German Translation |
by o
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2003
|
|
http://de.indymedia.org/2003/07/56816.shtml |
|
Building A Pan European Indymedia Website (Satire) |
by Europe-IMC
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
08 Jul 2003
|
http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=331093&group=webcast
SUMMARY: Proposal to create a European-IMC website as a national for European.-based IMCs.
WHY A EUROPE-IMC WEBSITE?
Discussion for a European based Indymedia website has happened on and off for many months. But recently this project received unprecendented
focus, as the Americans began formulating their schemes for such a project. Participants from about a dozen or so EuropeanIMCs expressed interest in seeing Indymedia articles of European significance highlighted on a Europe-based news website. They have committed to seeing this project through and have composed this proposal for review. Hurry up and look at it before the Australians get theirs going. An outreach working group was formed to invite local IMC's to participate. If your IMC is interested in being involved, please contact the Europe-IMC affinity group: imc-us (at) europeimc.org. (The link may be inactive due to Pentagon sabotage, however).
In addition, individual Europe-based IMCs who wish not to partake in a national IMC Website can opt out of the collaboration. (Adoption of the opt out clause will, however, result in your further marginalization from Europe. You are either with us, or against us, as the Yanks say).
Community based computer networks started in the Europe and expanded outwards. Americans say they started it, but the French had Minitel when the internet itself was only a dream. Now, IMCs exist on all continents and utilize many languages; however, while many country-specific IMCs exist, currently no IMC website focuses on the European continent as a whole. There are several reasons for such an IMC website to exist.
A less Euro-Centric Global Site: A Europe-IMC website would reduce domination of the global indymedia site by Western-specific issues. While it may not be apparent to many IMC-istas in Europe, Western stories have been overrepresented on the global Indymedia site. Having a European site would allow the global site to have a more balanced and diverse distribution of articles -- helping to alleviate the alienation experienced by some non-Europe viewers. (And if you believe that, there is bridge over the Bosphorus I can sell you).
Additionally, a Europe-IMC would help encourage the creation of a multi-lingual global site by creating a venue for many English, French, German, Italian, Dutch, Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, Swedish, Finish, Danish and other language posts that otherwise end up on the global site. (The multi-lingual US site will only have three languages: Bostonian English, Southern English, and Spanish).
Although the content of the global site is disproportionately English
language and Euro-centric, because of space limitations, many important
articles are passed up. A Europe-IMC website would be the appropriate place for these types of articles (e.g., important stories regarding European politics and domestic issues; attacks on civil liberties, detentions, egregious legislation, media consolidation, poverty, race and class issues, elections, America bashing, anti-McDonalds campaigns,). Furthermore, a European-IMC website would strengthen and solidify the Indymedia network in the Europe. Currently, manyEuropean IMCs exist in relative isolation from one another -- the only common news dissemination point being the global site. A European-IMC website would link these IMCs in a Pan-European network that could potentially become a "legitimate" and sustainable rival to the mainstream corporate media, and more importantly to the US International Propaganda Machine.
A European-IMC website is also an effective way to collectivize our struggles and draw national and international attention to the strong independent media movement in this troubled region. It will help make each of our local IMC's stronger by drawing traffic to our local sites whenever a story of continental significance happens in an IMC's home city or region. Plus it will create a new canvas that we can collaborate on together outside our local sites. Who knows what new projects could rise out of this? Of course the downside is that it could alienate the Yanks, and make them think we are too arrogant. Remember though, they started it!!!
The suggested format for the Europe site is a syndicated newswire of European- features, much like the global site syndicates features from IMCs around the world. Syndication was chosen specifically as the recommended format to prevent an unmanageable diversity of views from being made available (i.e., the open newswire will be available off the main page). The features column could include stories published by European IMCs, articles with information compiled from various Europe IMCs, and original pieces written exclusively for the Europe-IMC website. In addition, the Europe-IMC website could also feature work by other
alternative media sources (non-IMC specific).
***
ORGANIZATION -- three core, working groups have been discussed:
OUTREACH: This group would be responsible for contacting and inviting all Europe-IMCs to be involved in the process of creating the Europe-IMC website. Additionally, the outreach group would contact other independent media organizations (especially those in areas where there are no IMCs) to spread the word about the Europe-IMC website. Daily physical workouts, while singing the European anthem, could be broadcast via streaming audio and video at a specified time period, to help develop a unified European consciousness.
EDITORIAL: The editorial group will be responsible for newswire
maintenance (if an open newswire is part of the site) and feature
writing/compiling/editing. (We can always use a little more bureacracy). The philosophy of this group could be based on the approaches of great European propagandists, like Germany’s Herman Goering, for the less squeamish, Margaret Thatcher.
TECH: The tech group will be responsible for maintaining the tech aspects
of the site and creating syndication code to draw stories from various
participating IMCs, installing a codebase, and fixing bugs, as well as
general maintenance. People without tech expertise could be part of this
group in terms of helping to decide what features we want out of our code.
One goal is to make the site mutilingual with multilingual support (though American slang will not be permitted).
These three working groups will be composed of interested IMC members from across Europe. They will be easily identifiable by their uniforms.
It should also be noted that specifics of the editorial group are linked
to what code we decide to use for the site. For example, the global site
uses a code that requires email discussion and approval of features, while
sites that use dadaIMC code vote on features through the website.
Note about the term Europe-IMC: Some participants at the initial organizing meeting at the Allied Media Conference expressed concerns with the fact that having a Europe-IMC legitimizes or condones Europe as a potentially imperialistic superpower. Others recognized this and thought that regardless of our opinions of Europe, it exists, and we live in it, and by
calling it the Europe-IMC, we are taking a step towards reclaiming this
continent for the people that live in it. Afterwards, if we can beat the Americans at the game we invented, we can dominate the world.
Others suggested alternative names, such as
peopleofeurope.indymedia.org.
After extensive discussion it was agreed that despite its shortcommings, europe.indymedia.org would be used as the url. After all, remember that the name Europa was that of a mortal woman raped by the King of the Gods in Greek and Roman Mythology. See if the US can outdo us on the symbolism of that name. |
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by Mike - Michigan IMC
mmedow (nospam) umich.edu (verified) |
Current rating: 5
08 Jul 2003
Modified: 11:43:48 AM |
The language of the proposal should be changed to reflect the global roots of indymedia.
But beyond that I wholly support the US-IMC proposal. Face it, as much as we would love to pretend that the nation-state dosen't exist, or that we are all only residents of our respective bio-regions or somethning, the US state still does exist and it is a condition that those bound within it must confront. We cannot ignore the fact that we live in the US and that people in the US are subject to unique life situations and problems from the rest of the world. it just doesn't make sense to have five articles about the FCC on the Global site. The FCC is a branch of the US state and it is something that people in the US have the unique responsibility of having to deal with.
We need a USIMC to help coordinate those within the US to confront the bullshit conditions that we are uniquely subject to and accountable for. This concept is in no way "nationalistic," as some of the more vitriolic nay-sayers have suggested. Rather it is just pragmatic. |
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2003
|
MORE COMMENTARY ON THE PROPOSAL AT:
http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=331009&group=webcast |
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by chrystine
detwilerc (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2003
Modified: 03:05:33 PM |
Hi everybody
I wish we could continue this conversation on the us-process list where i believe more people would see it.Though I am very interested in this subject it was just by chance i heard about on-going discussion.It doesnt seem to belong on a local list. What I hear in the proposal is a hope that there will be greater imput before the affinity group actually applies to create the site. Can we agree on a place to have that discussion?Things are hardly set in stone.Some people have put forth an idea they are interested in doing. us-process was not formed as a working group, but as a list where us based issues can be discussed without imposing on the global lists.(amoung other things) I see no reason non us folks cant join us if they want to be involved in our regional discussions. us-process is not on the mailing list yet. To join go to lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-us-process. This list is growing daily and has many us liasons partcipating.
|
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by sean
sean (nospam) hairyjedi.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2003
|
Chrystine says: "I wish we could continue this conversation on the us-process list where i believe more people would see it."
but that's not true - only supporters of the project will join that list. people from the rest of the world who are likely to miss out if this project goes ahead will not be on that list.
sean |
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by Bill
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
08 Jul 2003
|
Why do you say people from the rest of the world will not be on that list?
Why did you insert the sneaky editorial comment, "who are likely to miss out if this project goes ahead"?
What they likely to miss?
Why don't you join the list?
Is your commitment to freedom and democracy limited to unsupported accusations?
|
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by chrystine
detwilerc (nospam) yahoo.com (verified) |
Current rating: 7
09 Jul 2003
Modified: 06:38:44 AM |
Just for the record, Frank, one of the facilitators of us-process list does not support the creation of us imc.People have joined the list to discuss many us based issues. The facilitation team has made a strong effort to attract liasons in the hope they will take the issue to their group and report group feedback in addition to individual comment from folks who just stumbled on this comment section here on the urbana-champ site.
I also think we might have to extend discussion deadline to make sure all get heard. I do suggest you join the list sean, just for the duration. You can unsubscribe when issue has been resolved. I wish we could all make an effort to be nice and understand that any good decision making process depends on a substantial period for concerns to be expressed and revisions made. Maybe we do need to reconsider name of site. Turtle Island is not bad. It seems to me too many people are having a knee-jerk response to the name us and not considering or giving enough time for those of us who were not with the original planning group to express our reasons that we think this is positive before just saying no, this isnt going to happen. |
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by Bill
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 10
09 Jul 2003
Modified: 10 Jul 2003 |
I read the knee-jerk reactions to be opposed to USians having their own site, not the name.
The argument is advanced specifically that USians will tend to read their own site in preference to others'. One would expect that. USians are human, most of them.
Various misfortunes are predicted to ensue.
However, such speculation fails to acknowledge that these same USians would tend to skip over the Spanish, Italian and Greek articles I read on global IMC today. Can anyone say what the difference will be?
Such speculation also fails to hope that USians, reading only their issues, might be moved to resolve them -- rather than diverting themselves with motes and beams in their neighbours eyes. Compare to the reasons advanced for stomping Afghanistan and Iraq.
No doubt, there are downtrodden peoples who are crying out for their complaints to be heard by USians. Others are speaking quite literally when they say, "Yanqui go home!"
As for 'Turtle Island', I know two Ojibwa gentlemen who are highly insensed that "they will steal even the name."
Besides, USians are not the only people on this island. Although the governments of Canada and Mexico are increasingly indifferent to being known as right- and left-hand lackeys of the US government, our struggles are very different from yours. Indeed, yours will fail if ours are swamped (however well-meaningly) by yours, or yours by ours.
States may be illegitimate, even illusory. However, they exist. While part of the practice of freedom is to pretend they do not exist whenever possible, there is no freedom at all in pretending that we cannot die when they take to stomping on us. Nor is it possible to formulate accurate analyses starting with an assumption that all states are the same : our governments, our very bodies, perform different functions in the machine of empire.
Build your US.indymedia.org. Use it to illuminate your struggle against the forces of darkness in your neighbourhood.
From time to time shine a little light over here; but don't go flashing it in anybody's eyes. OK?
|
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by Indymedia volunteer
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
10 Jul 2003
|
OK, ML, so exactly how many IMC's in the US have signed on..offered support, voiced dissent, or consensed on anything? What level of participation is actually developing outside of those participating in the listserve discussions?
My hunch is only a handful of US collectives have been actively engaged in this at this time. Prove me wrong.
(sorry, ML, but I have been following said dicussions on the global list-serves..and your veiled assertion that any criticism or questioning about the proposal at this time must be suspect is utter horseshit.) PS ..talk about anon. post. ML is short for what? |
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by Bill
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 5
10 Jul 2003
Modified: 09:43:50 PM |
If you have been following the discussions on the global listservers, howcum you have only a "hunch" about who is involved.
ML made no "veiled assertion" about you. ML stated clearly, ''First we have an anonymous "Indymedia volunteer" who makes a comment designed to appeal to the need for consensus, but in such a way that they imply that this development is somehow inherently already consensus deficient. I would dispute their charge that the nascent US-IMC serves as a "primary global gateway to US local sites..." There is nothing in the proposal that implies this.''
In fact, it is 'Indymedia volunteer' who made the veiled assertion implying that this process lacks consensus. And notice immediately above : not an assertion that the process lacks participation but a "hunch".
George Bush talks like you. He has no facts, so he makes a bunch of shit up, hoping that even if he never chances upon anything which is true people will be too busy proving what he says to be false that they will never have the opportunity to assert true facts.
|
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by consensus builder
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 13
11 Jul 2003
|
Ithaca specifically blocked even the list setup, so there is NO consensus even on that point, much less the notion of "IMC-US".
This project is going forward despite agreed-upon procedures and has no credibility. |
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by Bill
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jul 2003
Modified: 04:57:35 PM |
Credibility?
You mean folks aren't allowed to talk without your permission?
You expect to be taken seriously when you announce that you will vote no even before the proposal has been discussed?
You insist on the privilege of veto whilst refusing to participate in the consensus process?
You are not a consensus builder. You are a saboteur!
|
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by TJ
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
12 Jul 2003
|
|
Bill you are simply put, full of shit. Fact is that a bloc is in fact part of the consensus building process. (you might actually do some research on how IMC works..and what blocks represent before popping off accusations of 'Saboteur'). And a survey of the aforementioned list-serve does in fact indicate that only a minority of US IMCs have opted to participate in the discussion this time, much less consense on any action proposal for adoption. Another one of Sascha's and your organizational schemes foiled by the democratic process. Bummer. |
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by danner
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
12 Jul 2003
|
|
I have to wonder why this story is center panel. Given the paucity of decent news coverage and feature articles on Urbana IMC, (yes there is news - outside of IMC process discussions) you have to wonder if more effort should be put into improving this site's content. While Indymedia remains participatory media, and content is determined by the level of reader involvement and contribution, this site is beginning to look pretty stale. Maybe because school's out? |
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by Bill
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
13 Jul 2003
Modified: 08:19:20 PM |
I have no part in the organizing this,
other than my comments here, in this thread :
http://www.ucimc.org/feature/display/12607/index.php
and in the thread at the central site :
http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=331009&group=webcast
Also, every few days, I read the us-process list archive :
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-us-process/
Who said blocking was not part of consensus building?
|
|
What Constitutes Consensus? |
by Paul Kotheimer
herringb (nospam) prairienet.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 3
14 Jul 2003
Modified: 07:06:38 PM |
I speak as an IMC volunteer who is not very much involved in co-ordinated work. I act, as much as I can, as a Working-Group-of-One, producing media based on my own artistic or journalistic criteria. Whenever it meshes with my own desires, I try to offer the results of my work as a fundraising vehicle for my local IMC. I pitch in on grunt work when I can and I sometimes complain about the inconsistencies in how my fellow IMC participants work. Reading through this long, long list of comments, I notice that I have some commentary to add, and here it is:
The question "What Constitutes Consensus?" is one which almost all groups which call themselves "consensus decision-makers" probably wrestle with constantly.
In a human work-system which tries its best to exclude coercion (particularly the coercion of money), one version of "CONSENSUS" might be this: All those willing to work on a given project consent to make the project happen. Full consensus is acheived among those working on the project. The consent of anyone else is not relevant. If you don't want it, then don't work on it and don't use its products. In the world of commerce, of course, these strategies are called "going on strike" and "boycotting."
Once you personally have "gone on strike" and "boycotted" a project that disagrees with you, then you're faced with the possibility that the project may continue in spite of your lack of desire for it. So if this is the case, and it's no skin off your nose, then it seems like you're wasting your breath to protest the project's existence.
If, however, the project's existence DOES harm or deprive or inconvenience you, then the burden is on YOU to organize others to oppose its continuation, and/or to convince those giving their work to the project either to quit doing the harm you claim is being done or to change their design, plan, goals, to benefit you instead of harming you.
This is a version of "consensus" I have heard very frequently from IMC participants.
A competing version of "consensus" might be this: There is a pool of participants or "members" who might work on any proposed project. The entire pool needs to consent to the project before any participant may work on it.
This latter model for "consensus" seems pretty unweildy, especially when you look at all the commentators on this list who are chipping in their "two cents" on the idea of a US-IMC.
However, I am always trying to figure out how the concerns of all "stakeholders" in a global volunteer organization like the IMC can be factored in to any project worked on by any working group.
To deal with this, I recommend the role of "CONSULTANT." A consultant 1.) delivers information plus expert analysis of that information to a working group; 2.) wants the working group to succeed at meeting its own goals AND the goals of the IMC; 3.) knows that the information and analysis that consultants offer are NOT commands and cannot be commands.
The question I have, then, for all the commentators on this list is this: How can we all be more effective consultants to eachother's work? If you have any formulations in answer to this specific question, I welcome them, either here or at my own e-mail address: herringb (at) prairienet.org
|
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by Bill
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
15 Jul 2003
Modified: 11:29:55 PM |
The consensus process which I learned developed within the community activism movement. It is very much a learning process. The principle focus of the movement is improve life in our neighbourhoods. Theory and practice both assert that the citizens of a neighbourhood must learn how it works. One finds out how it works by convincing those same citizens, each and every one, to tell how it works for them.
This process not only creates a history and sociology, it creates a community. People learn to see each other as people. When Crazy Horse sat down with his neighbours, he knew who they were, he knew what they would think, he knew what they would say, he knew what they would do. That is a community.
In such a process, "I block", does not mean, "ha, ha, I can stop you and there is nothing you can do about it." It means, "I don't understand, help me."
OK, I shall stop that right there.
I notice you keep the word, "consent", nearby when you use the word "consensus". It is true that they derived from the same Latin verb; however, they have grown quite different meanings.
"consent" means to give permission. It hides behind its back a club, the power to forbid. This is the power conjured up by some of the posters above, when they say, "I block (ha ha I can stop you)." To oppose.
"consensus" means feeling (as in seeing, touching, perceiving) together... a consensus of opinion. Mutually supporting, agreeing.
|
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by stop the takeover
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
16 Jul 2003
|
"Theory and practice both assert that the citizens of a neighbourhood must learn how it works. One finds out how it works by convincing those same citizens, each and every one, to tell how it works for them."
It is not the objectors to the proposal who are expressing arrogance, it is those backing it.
No one - especially Bill - has yet stated a valid reason for having IMC-US. When asked to show "how it works for them", questioners are universally referred to cheerleading discussions that do not tell why there should even be an IMC-US.
The backers are saying, "Ha ha. We don't have to explain anything. We're going to go ahead no matter what the objection."
That's arrogance.
And that's Bill. |
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by Bill
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
17 Jul 2003
|
Well, 'stop' you are the first poster to say anything about the objectors expressing arrogance. Was your comment intended for some other thread?
As for reasons. Meinrath presented some in the proposal, which he posted in the original article, way at the top of this thread. More reasons have been proposed both here and in the maillists.
You have every right to consider them invalid. However, (just like Emperor Bush) you must explain _why_ you think they are invalid. You cannot just bang your head on the floor and scream, "Block! Block! Block!"
The consensus process is more than the brute power to sabotage. Far more than that. It is the courage to listen with honesty and respect. To listen and to speak. Then, to work together and succeed.
|
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by stop the real saboteurs
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 6
17 Jul 2003
Modified: 04:27:23 AM |
Following this brief comment is a reprise of the silly articulated "reason" that initiated this discussion (above) as to why there should be an IMC-US site.
Before reading it, visit
http://media.iww.org/newswire_100.php
review the links to the latest 100 newswire items in all languages from IMCs all around the world, and then ask yourself what the US-IMC proposal would do that is not already being done (my answer: nothing, other than to dilute IMC). Also, unless there are plans to prevent US articles from appearing on Global, the claim is dishonest that "Having a US site would allow the global site to have a more balanced and diverse distribution of articles -- helping to alleviate the alienation experienced by some non-US viewers."
-
A less US-Centric Global Site: A US-IMC website would reduce domination
of the global indymedia site by US-specific issues. While it may not be
apparent to many IMC-istas in the US, US stories have been overrepresented
on the global Indymedia site. Having a US site would allow the global site
to have a more balanced and diverse distribution of articles -- helping to
alleviate the alienation experienced by some non-US viewers. Additionally,
a US-IMC would help encourage the creation of a multi-lingual global site
by creating a venue for many English language posts that otherwise end up
on the global site.
Although the content of the global site is disproportionately English
language and US-centric, because of space limitations, many important
articles are passed up. A US-IMC website would be the appropriate place
for these types of articles (e.g., important stories regarding US politics
and domestic issues; attacks on civil liberties, INS detentions,
egregious legislation, media consolidation, poverty, race and class
issues, the 2004 elections). Furthermore, a US-IMC website would
strengthen and solidify the Indymedia network in the US. Currently, many
US IMCs exist in relative isolation from one another -- the only common
news dissemination point being the global site. A US-IMC website would
link these IMCs in a national network that could potentially become a
"legitimate" and sustainable rival to the mainstream corporate media.
A US-IMC website is also an effective way to collectivize our struggles
and draw national and international attention to the strong independent
media movement in this troubled country. It will help make each of our
local IMC's stronger by drawing traffic to our local sites whenever a
story of national significance happens in an IMC's home town or state.
Plus it will create a new canvas that we can collaborate on together
outside our local sites. Who knows what new projects could rise out of
this?
The suggested format for the US site is a syndicated newswire of US-
features, much like the global site syndicates features from IMCs around
the world. Syndication was chosen specifically as the recommended format
due to problems of open-publishing newswire abuse and following the
precendent set on the global Indymedia website (i.e., the open newswire
will be available off the main page). The features column could include
stories published by US IMCs, articles with information compiled from
various US IMCs, and original pieces written exclusively for the US-IMC
website. In addition, the US-IMC website could also feature work by other
alternative media sources (non-IMC specific). |
|
First One Thing, Then Another |
by Stop the Circular Reasoning
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Jul 2003
Modified: 09:25:49 AM |
I think your comment is very much weakened by the information from the US IMC proposal that you reposted below it. First, the objectors are worried that a US IMC will dilute the global IMC features. Then, you are worried that implementing a US IMC will dilute US features being posted to Global Features. What is your point or are you missing the logical disconnect between these two, mutually opposing positions that US IMC opponents are taking? You simply can't argue both ways and have people make any sense of the arguments you present.
No one is talking about banning US features from the Global Features section. What is desired is that purely US features have a place on US IMC (such as stories on the string of attacks on US IMCs by the authorities in the US this spring that moved propoenents of a US IMC into action, after the idea had been informally discussed for quite some time), leaving US features that have a significant global component on the Global Newswire. And there is no reason why some overlap can't occur for stories that should be in both places. And, as others have already mentioned, either section will only be a click away from the other. I can't imagine where some of the arguments that like to see things in black-and-white terms come from, as if there is some way a wall is going to erected to separate the two. That is just not what is going to happen, despite the wild and misinformed (or perhaps, just misinforming?) speculations that abound amongst some opponents of a US IMC. |
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by stop the idiotic ''reasoning''
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 4
17 Jul 2003
Modified: 11:19:37 AM |
Obviously you are untutored in logical reasoning.
"The objectors" are not monolithic and include some people who are concerned from one angle and others who are concerned from the other.
Your disturbed reasoning and annoying insults about "saboteurs" expressed in various rants is itself producing grave doubts in the minds of those who are examining this issue.
If that kind of behavior is to be expected of an IMC-US, then that alone is sufficient basis to block it now.
I also notice that you dodged addressing the existing http://media.iww.org/newswire_100.php which links to the latest 100 newswire items in all languages from IMCs all around the world.
Small wonder that you're dodging it, as its existence alone negates the raison d'etre for the proposed "IMC-US". Moreover, any IMC that wants it can link to it - including any and all US-based IMCs - without the need for the controlling centralization that you so desperately seek.
|
|
Obviously, You Are Reading What You Want Into This |
by Stop the Circular Reasoning
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Jul 2003
Modified: 12:50:27 PM |
I did not say that the opposition to this was monolithic. I merely pointed out that the reasoning used by opponents was often contradictory. Both of the groups in opposition (and I think that the opposition GENERALLY falls into the two groups I've described, although I am not implying that even those groups are totally internally coherent, just that they fall into these two broad categories) cannot be right, based on the their arguments which are headed in two different directions.
This points out that there is a problem with at least one of these general arguments, if not both of them. Once again, not all opponents are being spoken of here, as a few opponents, like our Australian comrades, made the effort to advance in a reasonable manner their concerns, within the IMC principles of Unity, unlike the majority of opponents who have been more interested in arguing that the semantics of a US IMC are wrong or tried to demonize those who initiated the discussion. Given the shallow and simplistic way that much of the opposition has advanced its case, rather than engage in open discussion on the relevant IMC lists, where they might have to put at least a public face on their opposition, it is hard to give it as much credit as some believe their opposition deserves.
I suspect that much of the opposition is by a few individuals who neither want to address the real issues, prefer that it not be known how little opposition there actually is, or don't want people concluding that the opposition is coming from a few people who are notorious for their past obstructionist tactics (including blocks that are made in bad faith) on IMC lists.
As was mentioned above by another poster, there seem to be a few who believe that it is their own, personal vision of Indymedia that they are in favor of and any diverse tactics that don't fit their myopic worldview need to be attacked, rather than tolerated as an alternative approach that might yield good results.
Those who have been most consistently active and effective in building the Indymedia network have been those who have supported a diversity of tactics, realizing that it takes more than their personal vision to advance Indymedia. I'm afraid that the zero-sum game that most of the opponents to a US IMC seem to be playing is a danger, in and of itself, to the network. That falied vision is one that can do nothing but feed factionalism and work to destroy the Indymedia Principles of Unity, specifically the first one:
"The Independent Media Center Network (IMCN) is based upon principles of equality, decentralization and local autonomy. The IMCN is not derived from a centralized bureaucratic process, but from the self-organization of autonomous collectives that recognize the importance in developing a union of networks."
I would suggest that those in opposition review the relevant document (available here http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/AboutUs) and address how they might modify their opposition so that it does not directly undermine the first principle, as much of it appears to do.
|
|
I Forgot To Say Something About This |
by Stop the Circular Reasoning
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Jul 2003
Modified: 01:13:30 PM |
Your link to this site: http://media.iww.org/newswire_100.php is interesting and useful, particularly if separate such lists were used to pull from BOTH the Global IMC Features site and the proposed US IMC site.
The problem with it is that it isn't part of the Indymedia network. Much of it consists of postings from outside the IMC network (like the Motley Fool, a rather strange place to automatically pull news from on an anti-capitalist website.) While I doubt that anyone at IMC will file a suit for trademark infringement, the fact that the design of the page riffs off certain well-known Indymedia graphics and designs is somewhat questionable. One might conclude that you are trying to fool the reader into thinking it is an official part of the Indymedia network, when it is not. I would not call it a suitable subsitute for either Global IMC or for a US IMC, although it could provide a valuable supplement. |
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by Bill
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
19 Jul 2003
Modified: 01:57:32 AM |
Yo, I am Bill.
Those other folks are... well, they're other folks. I use the name, "Bill", because it's my name and because when people see the name, "Bill", they know it's me and when they don't see the name, "Bill", they know it's somebody else; perhaps one of those other folks (who are nice folks, but they are not me, they are others).
The reason I want people to know it's me, Bill, and not one of those other (nice) folks ... ok, I haven't explicitly said it but I strongly implied it ... the reason I want people to know it's me is, I often say things which they wouldn't say and they (nice though they may be) often say things which I wouldn't say.
So. When you say something like, "you said thus and so", make sure when you say it to me that "thus and so" is indeed something I said, and when you say it to them that "thus and so" is something they said. Don't go jumbling them up : me and them or the things which I and they said or didn't say.
OK? Thank you.
I looked at the IWW newswire site suggested by 'stop the real saboteurs' and/or 'stop the idiotic ''reasoning''', above. I looked at it twice.
The first time, I saw 90 or so headlines with links. Then, my browser (an early Mozilla) became nauseous, vomited and died. I don't hold ill-will against IWW; nor even (very much) against the web-master or the 'stop' folks.
This first time, the links were mostly to Italian and Australian Indymedia sites. Apparently, the 100 most important news stories depend on when I look -- which isn't too unreasonable -- except I would like to see a bit of signal in the noise.
And they depend, too, I suppose, on which face the earth has turned to the sun, or more accurately, how far along Apollon, with his chariot and his spy-cameras, is in his daily surveillance of nude beaches. (Just kidding! I truly believe he is checking for evidence of the sky falling. Really.)
The second time, the last half-dozen headlines didn't show up. Although my browser looked a bit peakish, it shuddered once, and womanfully carried on.
This time, the headlines and links were mostly CNN, Washington Post, Japan Times, Ha'Aretz, Miami Herald, Japan Today, The Sun ... if you don't mind ... I'm feeling a little peakish now myself.
OK, I grant that they are (w)retched examples, probably Republican (not very representative).
Surely, however, it -- the site -- your own example -- is at least qualitative evidence that nobody should trust a piece of software, with the intelligence approximately of a US president, to select news stories.
|
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by Bill
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
19 Jul 2003
|
Now, about keeping my, Bill's, words separate from their, those other nice folks', words.
I am Bill. It is I who noticed that 'consensus builder' presented a misleading name, that he is a saboteur.
The person who is "untutored", who thinks objectors are made out of one stone, who has "disturbed reasoning" and "annoying insults", who makes people think of graves, that person is somebody else. An other person. Not Bill. Maybe 'Stop the Circular Reasoning'. Although, I doubt that any one person can harbour so many dreadful sins.
Let me be clear : I insulted nobody. I described somebody, accurately.
'consensus builder' is obviously _not_ seeking a mutually satisfying relationship. He stated very clearly, in his opinion, the discussion should be entirely suppressed...
In his opinion, the very possibility of consensus must be prevented.
He is not a builder. He is a saboteur.
|
|
Re: Building A National U.S. Indymedia Website. |
by another IMC volunteer
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Aug 2003
Modified: 04 Aug 2003 |
One interesting facet of this proposal is that it will allow media producers to submit stories for publication in the center panel in addition to the proposed syndicated local features wire, subject to a editorial selection process by a self selected features working group. This decision making process continues to be a point of contention in the global Network when it comes to center panel stories on the global page, as the proponents of this proposal perhaps inadvertantly underscore when they raise the real concerns about the US centric character of the global site features coverage. Yet, it's instructive to note that similar concerns are not addressed in this proposal about insuring that center panel coverage on a new US site actually is regionally representative here as well. And despite assurances to the contrary, such a site would in effect evolve as a key portal to US IMC sites across the Web. IMHO, this is not inherently a bad thing..as long as a real consensus emerges from US IMC local collectives about the utility of such a decision. But that consensus is far from emerging...and a careful review of the list-serve traffic confirms that only a minority of US IMC's are involved in the discussion about this. So what gives?
One has to wonder about what other agendas are at play here. Perhaps a desire to centralize and professionalize a US IMC regional site network? Create a 'product' that can be marketed to potential funders willing to fund national alternative media projects? Or provide a attractive national venue to those alternative media producers with professional career aspirations - who would prefer to skip the all too messy process of participating in a local IMC?
Inquiring minds want to know. |
|
