In the last week of November 1999, a news website run entirely by volunteers was launched. "Don't hate the media; be the media" was the battle cry of hundreds of people who converged in Seattle to bring about the birth of the Independent Media Center (IMC, or Indymedia). The project promised the democratization of the media, and more: "Imperfect, insurgent, sleepless and beautiful, we directly experienced the success of the first IMC in Seattle and saw that the common dream of 'a world in which many worlds fit' is possible," wrote media activist and Seven Stories Press editor Greg Ruggiero. The idea was contagious. Almost 6 years on, there are 149 Indymedia websites in about 45 countries on 6 continents.

The newborn IMC provided the most in-depth and broad-spectrum coverage of the historic direct actions against the World Trade Organization that fall. Despite having no advertising budget, no brand recognition, no corporate sponsorship, and no celebrity reporters, it received 1.5 million hits in its first week--more than CNN got in the same time. Its innovative "open publishing" newswire meant that anyone with computer access could be a reporter. The user-friendly software allowed people to publish directly online, and since more than 450 people got IMC press passes (and scores more reported from their homes), they provided coverage of the historic protests from every block of downtown Seattle. Audio, video, photos, and articles were uploaded at a breathtaking pace. The site embraced the do-it-yourself ethic completely, meaning that there were no restrictive site managers, editors, or word-count limits. At the time, such restrictions seemed dictatorial, oppressive--counterrevolutionary, even. Now, I find them rather appealing.

The open publishing newswire, once filled with breaking stories and photographic evidence refuting government lies, now contains more spam than an old email account. On many sites, it's difficult to find original reporting among the right-wing diatribes and rants about chemtrails poisoning the atmosphere. Coverage of local protests often consists of little more than a few blurry photos of cops doing nothing in particular, without a single line of text explaining the context, the issues, or the goals of the protest. And forget about analysis or investigative reporting. They tend to be as rare on Indymedia as they are on Fox News.

This isn't to suggest that I've avoided Indymedia as a journalist, or that I disagree with its mission--neither are true. I've worked with various IMCs over the years during big protests, mostly as a reporter, and mostly secondarily to the various actions I was involved with. In 1999, I met early on with some of the founders of the first IMC, who wanted an outside perspective on what they were cooking up. In 2001, I covered the Zapatista caravan for the Chiapas, UK, and Seattle sites; later that year I worked in the IMC during the protests against the G8 summit in Genoa, taking phoned-in reports from the streets, confirming them, plotting movements on maps, and posting the news. In Cancún I did support work in the IMC during the 2003 WTO actions, as well as some reporting. In Miami, during the Free Trade Area of the Americas protests that same year, I reported for the short-lived paper and the website. And last summer in El Alto, Bolivia, I worked with locals on covering an important federal election.

On the anniversary of the Iraq invasion earlier this year, I was in Mexico, trying to get information about antiwar protests around the United States. I looked at IMC sites based in cities where I knew there were actions, and found nothing. Eventually, I found what I was looking for--on the BBC. The experience, unfortunately, is not uncommon. Each time I try and find news among the Indymedia drivel, I ask myself the same question: What happens when--in our attempts not to hate the media but to be it--we end up hating the media we've become?

I know I'm not alone in my frustration with IMCs. "I haven't looked at Indymedia in over a year," says the editor of a nationally distributed radical magazine. "Indymedia? It's completely irrelevant," a talented documentary filmmaker tells me. "I let the IMC use my photos but I don't ever read it," says a freelance photojournalist. More and more, independent media makers (even those who occasionally publish on or are affiliated with an IMC) don't even bother looking for news on Indymedia. And for good reason: Indymedia news "coverage" is often lifted from corporate media websites, with occasional editorial remarks added. Some IMC sites limit this type of reporting to a specific section, and there it can lead to informative discussion and criticism. But most seem to rely on it to fill column space in the newswire. This isn't making media, it's cutting and pasting--relying on so-called experts and professionals to do what you are, evidently, too lazy or busy to do yourself. The few original articles are frequently riddled with unsubstantiated claims, rumors, dubious anonymous sources, bad writing, and/or plagiarism. Rarely is anything edited--and I don't mean by the collective that runs the site. Users themselves aren't editing their own work, but instead are posting 18 blurry, almost identically bad photographs, or thesis-length uninformed opinion pieces that weren't even spell checked. Verified facts are an endangered species on Indymedia, and arguments in support of fact-checking are often met with cries of "Censorship!" To make matters worse, Indymedia articles are usually posted anonymously (and therefore unaccountably), with no way to offer feedback other than the flame-ridden fray of the comments section. If the goal of Indymedia is, as its mission statement says, "the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of the truth," we are clearly falling short.

Perhaps it's useful to ask what constitutes effective communication. By any remotely sane definition, both telling and receiving are necessary. But the burden to communicate effectively belongs to the active party--the teller--not the audience. This is as true in one-on-one settings as it is in mass media. But the Indymedia mission doesn't mention audience. Instead it's all about the creation and the telling. Maybe this is, in part, where the problem lies. With the focus placed so strongly on the "tellings of the truth," the reader/watcher/listener is left to fend for herself. And if we have so little respect or concern for our audience, what on earth are we doing working in a medium based entirely in communication?

It's also a question of intent. I want my work to contribute to social change. And I sometimes end up a perfectionist, knowing that the better my work is, the greater an impact it will have. People don't read sloppy, unedited, or disorganized stories; they don't look at bad photographs or videos. And so the potential to have an impact is greatly diminished. This isn't a philosophical question about whether trees make sounds when falling in forests. Simply put, an unread article changes nothing.

And if we change nothing, not only have we failed in our responsibility to our audience, we have failed our subject as well. If I'm writing about a social movement, I am accountable to the people who trust me with their stories. I want my article to help them, not hurt them. When I'm writing about a particular issue, I want to inform and inspire others to get involved in learning more and maybe working on that issue also. Making media is a bit like scattering seeds, in that we never know where our work will end up--if it will germinate, take root, and spread; if it will survive fire or drought; if others will notice and propagate it. We should put out the hardiest and healthiest seeds that we can, so the information stored within will have a better chance at survival.

While all IMC collectives across the global network are individual and autonomous, there are certain commonalities that hold them together. The website layout and navigation tends to be quite similar, the process of uploading material tends to work the same way, and most use the same software. There are a few that stand out in various ways--some have more intensive editing, a few publish newspapers or have radio stations, and some are deeply linked to the communities they serve. Most people I've spoken with agree that the Portland, Oregon, site stands out a lot. Portland is known worldwide for getting technical resources and website security to other collectives in the network. In addition to their own site, they also generously host the US national site. And they have other policies that set them apart as well--but in quite different ways.

In many IMC collectives, the editing vs. free speech dichotomy is argued as hotly as abortion is debated by members of congregations and Congress. It's a debate that I imagine any group with open publishing would have to face. Many sites have explicit policies about what sorts of material will remain visible on their sites. Chicago has a policy of editing or hiding posts that are "racist, sexist, homophobic, or that clearly fly in the face of our mission to serve as a space for the exchange of news, dialogue and opinion that advances economic and social justice. Posts that serve as commercials for for-profit companies will be removed." They then go on to explain the reason for this: Right-wing and fascist organizations have a history of targeting Indymedia sites, despite having plenty of their own forums in which to post. Chicago's policy is clear, and they seem to stick to it. And they are not an exception--it's quite common across the network to hide such posts rapidly. (Hidden posts do not appear in the newswire but are available for the curious through a link.)

Portland has a similar policy in writing, but it sometimes seems more a formality than a reflection of practices. In the 1980s the city was a mecca for fascists and neonazis who beat an Ethiopian immigrant to death in 1988, and were subsequently driven out of town or underground. When I lived there in 2001, they briefly reemerged, and began using the Indymedia site to post recruitment messages for Volksfront--a white-supremacist, neonazi organization--as well as announcements of an upcoming meeting and concert featuring White Aryan Resistance leader Tom Metzger. Several antifascist organizers contacted the editorial group in an effort to have the posts hidden. Our requests were denied; we were told that we were undermining free speech by requesting censorship, and were invited to post messages in response to the fascists' recruitment efforts. To us, this was inadequate. Let the ACLU protect neonazis' free speech rights--they were using a community resource to spread their hate-based propaganda, and we wanted it stopped immediately.

Though that level of fascist material has not been seen on the site recently, it is unclear if this is due to the nazis going back underground or due to a policy shift at Portland Indymedia. To my knowledge, there hasn't been anything like the Volksfront postings; however, in the last 13 months, the Portland IMC has hosted at least 7 articles by or in support of antisemitic cult leader Lyndon LaRouche, the most recent from April of this year. This, combined with the frequency of conspiracy theories about 9/11, mixed in with the occasional nostalgic ode to Kurt Cobain or oddball spoof on the fundamentalist-Rapturist Left Behind book series, seriously undermines the Portland site's usefulness.

Another Portland anomaly that detracts from its utility is the reorganization of links to other cities' Indymedia sites. Whereas most Indymedia sites list the links alphabetically by continent and country, Portland has come up with some geography- and logic-defying categories that make it absurdly difficult to find things. According to their creative cartography, St. Louis is in the "Mississippi Delta," despite the fact that the actual delta is confined to the southernmost tip of Louisiana, and the nearest Indymedia site is based over 80 miles away in New Orleans. The "Great North Woods" is not where my intuition tells me to look for New York City, and inexplicably, Tijuana is listed not with Mexico, but with the "South West" area of "Turtle Island"-- described by Portland Indymedia as an indigenous term for North America. San Francisco is also in the southwest. But not Arizona. If you click on "why this cities list," you'll find an explanation of the rationale behind the restructuring process (capitalization is in the original): "The cities list has been broken up heavily to make it easier to know where a particular imc is in the world.... The basic idea was to make the categories more defining of an area and ultimately align indymedias that would be working through similar regional issues, instead of continuing the socio-political lines that have always defined the cities list." Later on, the (anonymous) authors proudly state that they spent 15 hours working on the list. Fifteen hours, apparently without consulting a map.

There are certain etiquettes established by the very nature of Indymedia. Because so much of the work is online, collectives are able to network with other groups all across the planet, wherever there are internet connections and, when necessary, translators. While this is obviously a great strength, it can also be one of the most debilitating weaknesses, as people often act differently online than when they are face-to-face.

Ana Nogueira, who works with US Indymedia, grew weary of this dynamic. "After four years of working on this stuff I got really frustrated and burnt out by the lack of accountability. The spontaneity of the IMC could be held back by some stranger blocking a proposal from somewhere, anonymously. I originally proposed [the creation of] the US site [in order to allow the Global site to be more balanced, and less US-centric] two years ago, and it was blocked and blocked. You have to be really determined to see something through; you can't be too sensitive. People can be really curt and obnoxious on email, because they don't have to see you in person."

This may be a factor in some tensions in Mexico City between the IMC collective and other radical independent media groups. The Mexico City IMC has a policy of having meetings only online, never face-to-face. And they have acted in ways that seem territorial, even competitive, with another local media collective, Informative Action in Resistance (AIRE, in its Spanish acronym), that has worked closely with Indymedia centers in Monterrey, Cancún, and Guadalajara during actions. AIRE has received unsigned nasty emails from Indymedia Mexico City, in one case accusing AIRE of being "pseudo-activists playing with electronic toys."

"It's no good launching attacks on each other and using the tools of the right wing when we're trying to make a new form of communication," says María Martínez of AIRE. "There are so many independent radio projects and media projects in this huge city. We want to work with everybody, but not when they attack us like this." Earlier this year, AIRE sent some of its members to Brazil for the World Social Forum, where they met with some Brazil IMC folks. When word got back to Mexico City Indymedia, they were angry, apparently claiming that AIRE had no right to connect with the Indymedia network. This kind of territorial behavior can be more destructive than any of the outside forces and challenges we face. This is particularly true in the monstropolis of Mexico City, where radical organizations are already atomized due to geography and time constraints, and where sharing resources isn't only philosophically principled, but absolutely essential.

Another challenge inherent in the Indymedia form is that participation, as well as passive consumption, requires not only patience and a thick skin, but also internet access. Certain local groups have breached the digital divide, even if only for a brief spell. Seattle set a strong precedent during the week of the WTO protests by printing 2,000 copies of the daily paper The Blind Spot and distributing them on the streets during the actions. The paper was also available online, and was downloaded in Brussels, where 8,000 more copies were distributed. The Seattle IMC also streamed a radio broadcast that was picked up by Radio Havana and broadcast across Cuba. Additionally, they produced a nightly program that ran on public access television. Many other IMCs have followed suit during actions; what's more challenging is maintaining a presence when there isn't the momentum, surge of volunteers, and extra cash flow that an action can bring.

And cash flow is a huge issue. Many collectives, from London to Bolivia, have produced short-lived newspapers. But print is not cheap, and fundraising isn't one of the sexier parts of independent journalism. We're always short on money, and then when we do have any, it tends to come with controversy. "We have a larger budget than most," says John Tarleton of The Indypendent, the New York City IMC newspaper. "We've had a paid staff for the last few years, so it has been possible for us to do more. We weren't the first newspaper to take advertisements, but it was a really controversial decision. People often have a fear that money will corrupt everything, and that's certainly something to be mindful of, but having no money is also really debilitating."

Because Indymedia is such a broad and diffuse network, decision making across the planet can be tediously slow and sometimes results in painful and frustrating situations. A few years ago, the Ford Foundation awarded Indymedia a grant of $50,000 to fund a global Indymedia conference. But there were some in the network who didn't want to accept the corporate money, and ultimately the grant had to be declined.

There's also the very real factor of laziness. It's a lot easier to block decisions than to resolve a conflict, find a compromise, let go of our precious ideologies and opinions in favor of the group's effectiveness, and move the fuck forward. It's much easier to critique new ideas than to take on a task and complete it on a deadline. Anyone who's done radical organizing or independent media has almost certainly dealt with people who attach themselves to already existing projects or works in progress, contribute nothing themselves, and then exercise a veto over anything that comes up. If our goal is to make powerful, transformative, effective media, we have to learn to neutralize these problem people--even by voting them out of the collective, if necessary. Our effectiveness and sustainability depend on resolving such conflicts and forging ahead. As Luis Gómez of the Narco News website says, "A good journalist doesn't create problems, but rather, solves them." And sometimes Indymedia just seems to lack enough good journalists.

Perhaps this has something to do with the word journalist. After all, one of the points of Indymedia is to show that anyone can be a journalist, that anyone can tell a story, and that anyone can create media. But is that really true? Sure, digital video and still cameras get cheaper and easier to use all the time. And with the widespread availability of the internet, more Americans than ever are writing. But ease of use does not equal quality product. I don't mean that every comment on every article should be carefully crafted and edited (although I do believe that every computer does have, somewhere within its hard drive, some form of spellchecking software). And I don't mean that an article shouldn't be published if it doesn't have a gripping lead, an explicit nut graf, and a zinger of an ending, or if it doesn't conform to AP pyramid style. It isn't the lack of journalistic style or convention that irks me. It's the lack of journalistic principles, and the laziness. People seem to forget that writing and photography are skills that people develop over many years. They are not unattainable, they are not rocket science--but it's the worst sort of arrogance to think that your very first article, unedited, should make it to the front page. And it's laziness that keeps people perpetually posting without ever making an effort to develop their skills.

New York Indymedia is one collective that teaches people to become good journalists. "We've had lots of community reporting workshops," says Tarleton, "and people have come in off the street with little or no experience, but burning with a story they want to tell. Sometimes it takes them several months to write their first story, but they stick it out. We do a lot of skill sharing--people who want to communicate their ideas can get better at it. Anyone who sticks it out for six months or so can be writing regular news stories. The bottom line is that articles have to be well-written, accurate, fairly nonrhetorical, and convey radical ideas through quality writing and research. If half are good and half are shit, the crappy stories discredit everything else."

The Indypendent got a lot of criticism for its rigorous selection and editing process, with many people believing that the paper should publish any submission it receives. But as Tarleton says, "We're not doing the paper to boost the ego of our writers. It's for our readers-- to give them the best possible information within our limited ability and resources."

Some (often anonymous) folks tend to accuse independent journalists of having "sold out" if we publish in corporate outlets, make money as journalists, take ads in our publications, or demand high quality or even rewrites of submissions. But that means media in which talent and skill are punished, mediocrity rules, and we all hold hands and congratulate each other for "telling it like it is," even when few can understand the telling. Is that really the kind of media we want?

This sort of self-congratulatory, self-important attitude alienates almost everyone outside of the proverbial "activist ghetto," (and plenty of us inside it, too). It manifests itself not only in the style and phrasing of reporters' posts, but also in the very nature of what gets reported on IMCs. Direct actions make up an overwhelming amount of the content, sometimes to the exclusion of almost everything else. But if most of us think of Indymedia as being useful only for mass actions--or worse, our own private way of getting updates on what our friends are doing halfway around the planet--it may never grow to be much more than that.

Some Indymedia sites have proven to be valuable community resources way beyond the activist scene, simply by being in the right place at the right time. According to Joshua Breitbart of Global Indymedia, "What we saw in Argentina in 2002 and New York after September 11 was that people decided to make Indymedia a community possession. When these unplanned conflicts came to the community, the IMC was ready and able to contain a huge increase in activity in a way that most organizations can't. What do you do when 50 people show up at your office and want something to do? In New York we gave them newspapers to distribute. What do you do when your whole government melts and you have to find your own ways of making decisions about city services and having meetings? Well, an open publishing newswire like Argentina's IMC comes in pretty handy." In such instances, Indymedia became a community service almost as essential as trash collection, sewage treatment, and medical services. People depended on it during crises, and used it effectively as an organizing tool and information source. But we shouldn't have to wait for an act of terrorism or a government meltdown to spur us into action. We all, at least in the US, have access to that same resource--and yet we vastly under-utilize it.

The blame for this is diffuse--I am complicit by not volunteering with IMCs over longer periods of time, by getting frustrated and walking away from disagreements rather than sticking it out and working toward resolutions, and by not publishing my work on the websites all that often. The blame also lies on all of us who have gotten sick of Indymedia and just stopped using it rather than trying to change it, or, for those of us who are less patient, starting something new.

"Indymedia's biggest problem is that it is unique," says Breitbart. "People want it to solve every problem, to be all things to all people, and it just can't do everything. Some of the practices and tools that we've developed can be taken out and put into other struggles and communities where they can gain new relevance--be experimented on in new ways. We should be thinking about how to make it no longer unique, so it's not so valuable, because we have other independent media available."

I want to challenge independent media makers of all sorts, from the folks who volunteer most of their free time to keep the Indymedia sites and collectives up and running, to the people posting angry 3:00 am rants against union organizers and engaging in endless flame wars. I hope to provoke people to live up to another IMC slogan: "Make media, make trouble." I want to see our work become more accountable, better networked, more effective, and ultimately, more threatening. The best journalists are the ones who provoke, who pose a real threat to the status quo. But by tolerating low standards, forgetting our audience, and getting fetishistically bogged down in process and ideology, we succeed only in making trouble for ourselves.

Writer's note: My research was limited to IMC sites whose dominant languages are English, Spanish, Portuguese, or French. This included sites in Europe and the Americas as well as in Manila, India, Palestine, and South Africa.

*****

Exemplary IMCs, in no particular order, that make me proud to be an occasional Indymedia reporter:

Bolivia: Many collective members are involved in the day-to-day struggles of the region and have earned the trust of social movements. They broadcast a weekly radio news program in association with community-run Radio Wayna Tambo in El Alto, and provided all-day live coverage of last year's national referendum on natural gas, with around 15 reporters calling in with updates and interviews from 7 cities across the country. They also host video screenings. I went to one that was attended by about 80 people, 95 percent of whom were indigenous Aymara. Before the screening, the IMC organizers poured several pounds of coca leaf on a table--much appreciated by the audience. In addition, they are working to get donations of computers from the United States, not for their own use, but in a true act of solidarity, to give to an Aymara community on the Altiplano that requested them. http://bolivia.indymedia.org

India: An interesting site, though not frequently updated, and with a fairly low level of participation. Certainly, internet access is a luxury on the subcontinent, and only 60 percent of the over-15 population is literate. Content is almost exclusively in English, also a luxury. So though I don't think that the site accurately represents what's happening in India and who is making it happen (a near-impossible feat for any one site to do), it still has good writing, generally constructive engagement in comments sections, and information I would be hard pressed to find elsewhere. http://india.indymedia.org

Urbana-Champaign: After buying a downtown post office and transforming it into a community center, organizing successfully to prevent the local police from buying tasers, and playing an instrumental role in voting out a corrupt mayor, it's exciting to imagine what the folks at this IMC might do next. Well, actually, next up they are helping launch a community radio station that should be broadcasting in June. Their website covers local and global issues, and often features people signing what seem to be their real names to their work. Overall, they are truly embedded in their community, and provide valuable resources in terms of trainings, open debate, and lots of media. http://www. ucimc.org

Global: An excellent overview of the world's Indymedia, this site is incredibly useful, perhaps in large part because there is no open publishing--all posts are selected by editors. The editorial collective is accessible and responsive to stories pitched to them, and they are in the process of refining this process to make it even easier. With both Spanish- and English-language features teams, and with the birth of US Indymedia siphoning off a lot of US-dominant traffic, this site has truly gone global. http://www.indymedia.org

North Texas: With broad relevance to a diverse population, the site has everything a good community paper should have--news, book reviews, opinion pieces. The quality of writing is consistently high but not academic, using accessible language without lingo or mysterious acronyms. Coverage is primarily of local events, with a smattering of regional, national, and international items. It also serves as a message board, with announcements about such things as community garden plots available and biodiesel fuel for sale. http://www.ntimc.org

San Francisco Bay Area: With a carefully edited website laden with news, Enemy Combatant Radio streaming, and the year-old monthly newspaper Fault Lines, the Indybay IMC is one of the best. The site is well organized, easy to navigate, and provides broad coverage of issues. Many collective members are involved in a slew of local struggles, and it shows. http://www.indybay.org

NYC: Publishes The Indypendent, a biweekly newspaper with a circulation between 12,000 and 15,000. Its editors are highly skilled and work closely with writers. Their war coverage has been some of the best in the country, scooping several stories that even daily papers with high-salaried staffs missed. The website receives similarly attentive editing. http://nyc.indymedia.org

Ecuador: Covers a broad range of local, national, and international news, with minimal reprinting of corporate articles and very little spam or diatribe. Frequently updated and carrying excellent coverage and discussion of major issues, such as the recent ousting of President Gutierrez and the rise of neighborhood assemblies. http://ecuador.indymedia.org

Manila: Very well-written articles predominate on this site, and people actually sign their names to their work! Lots of radical analysis and less focus on protests is a welcome change. http://manila.indymedia.org

UK: With a weekly radio program on a community arts station in London, an erratically published newspaper, the Offline, and frequent video screenings, the UK (that stands for United Kollektives, by the way) team is on the case. Web stories range from action coverage to analysis to announcements and updates, with thorough coverage of national issues, and a broad smattering of international news. This site often features the lovely convention of an independently written article followed by links to corporate media coverage of the same topic, for folks wanting contrast, more info, or confirmation of facts and data. I wish others would do this more. They also encourage people to correct mistakes in the comments section, and, if notified, the editors will post the correction in the original article when appropriate. The UK site has also been, since its inception, the place to go for resources on longer term organizing of mass actions, whether they be local May Day protests, international days of action in other countries, or the upcoming G8 summit in Scotland. The writing is excellent, even on the newswire. Though its vigorous hiding of articles not meeting their editorial guidelines has been controversial in some circles, could it be that having the newswire tightly edited may push people to do better work in order to get published? I find the UK IMC site to be consistently one of the best. Though I do wish it weren't pink. http ://www.indymedia.org.uk

Argentina: In Buenos Aires, Indymedia set up shop for a while in a squatted building-formerly a bank and now a community center opened by the Cid Campeador neighborhood assembly. The association with the political birth of the squat has meant that participation among the unemployed, as well as the neighborhood, is high, although the physical site has shut down. Since the financial collapse in late 2001, participation on the website has come from a broad sector of the population, who have used it in their efforts to govern their own communities. http://argentina.indymedia.org

Brazil: One of the few Indymedias to do proactive investigative reporting, it's truly a political force in the country, to which municipal and state governments must occasionally respond. The center column is translated into three other languages (including, incredibly, Esperanto). They have a broad network of reporters, translators, techies, and radio stations spread across the enormous country. http://brazil.indymedia.org

Here is my response:

This is generally a response to Whitney. However, it is one of the last responses I can write, at this time, because, though I love this topic, and I love indymedia, frankly, my fingers and brain get tired, so it will also include, near the end, more general responses. I will try to keep it shorter, 'cause lord knows, as some have noted, my responses have been expansive. I can only defend their length by saying that I am passionate about making indymedia something great and think about the topic a lot.

I am going to go point by point again:

1) Salaud inserts hir clever little "(sic)" into the title given to my article by Alternet. So go take it up with them—the title of my article, as published in that commercial publication, LiP Magazine, is "Make Media, Make Real Trouble: What's Wrong (and Right) With Indymedia."

Fair enough.

Whitney says:

2) I have never chosen to put my work under copyright. If you look at the hard copy of LiP (did anyone buy a copy? There are beautiful photos donated by Indymedia photographers, not to mention lots of great articles too) you will see that all articles are copyright to LiP, not to individual authors.

Awehali, Editor of LiP magazine says:

For the record, the copyright statement at the end of the UCIMC version of the piece is kind of a non-copyright statement. Jen "owns" her copyright for her work, and the UCIMC reproduced it, as the statement says, without any "authorizations." LiP does, in fact, place a copyright notice on articles that appear on our site, but it's important to note that this is a matter of strategy, not capitulation to capitalist conceptions of intellectual property.

I am not sure who to trust here. I am betting on Whitney being correct.

Whitney says:

I would prefer that LiP, and any other magazine with which I publish, use copyleft or Creative Commons, and yet I understand and respect Brian Awehali's explanation of why LiP articles get copywritten. Sometimes I work with people, and publications, with whom I disagree on a few things. Maybe that's hard for some people to imagine doing.

I am going to say this a few times in this article, because I think (I hope) we are reaching the end of this round of talking about this topic online at least. I want to try to communicate to Whitney that my article and more especially this one is not meant as personal attack for what Whitney or LiP magazine does with their lives/projects. My article is about indymedia. I am saying that those things that they do don't match with the philosophy or apply to indymedia. They aren't the right paths for our work. Not that they are horrible mean nasty ugly things to do for other paths.

Now, I just want to say that in indymedia we cannot come to a place of respectful understanding about why an indymedia would copywrite anything on a website. It's wrong. It's the antithesis of what we should be trying to accomplish in indymedia work. As an indymedia enabler I and others work with people that we disagree with on a few things all the time. I personally feel more willing to work with liberals and perhaps even some more libertarian types than others, at least here at Portland. I think it is important to empower everyone. That's about me. But, I think that indymedia enablers should be willing to enable people with whom they disagree. By and large they do....so success! I disagree with Josh (I know I didn't show him in a good light perhaps with respect to his statement) and Sascha on some things. I still think they are great because they are committed to doing this indymedia work. That is to say that while on the continuum of indymedia philosophy and pratice we may be far apart, on the continuum of people on the whole, we are very close together. The fact that we have so much more in common than not, should not prevent me or anyone else from having a very real critique, that is meant to be constructive. I don't fault Whitney for trying to do that. I think I make that statement in the first line(s) of my article. I don't think that the critique was altogether constructive because it didn't provide solutions that I think will help indymedia and it singled out and misrepresented Portland.

Whitney says:

3) I have been paid for journalism twice in the five years that I've been publishing; both times by a London-based magazine. However, I think that whether I get paid or not is beside the point, though I find it amusing that so many people have chosen to vilify me based on the assumption that I'm making money as a writer.

For my part I don't want to villify Whitney for taking money for articles. I just don't want it to be considered ok for indymedia work. Again, it's fine and dandy if you want to do that in different projects, but I would tend to villify those that said they should apply to indymedia. Except, for a very few in this world, we all walk multiple paths in this life. I respect and am encouraged by those that try to make all aspects of their lives unified with respect to their politics and conviction. I cannot do that now, I think. Not many can. I have to go to work in a capitalist world to pay for my rent and to enable others to do media. I can't pretend that I don't contribute to capitalism by working in it. We couldn't pretend we weren't contributing to the tyranny of corporate media by using it's tactics (intellectual property and others) in indymedia. Indymedia needs a chance to grow in an environment that does not capitulate or take on the poisons of the old "journalism" right now, or ever. We must stay away from those ways of doing things or we will de done before we have even really started. Indymedia was born in new tactics, we are developing new tactics and philosophies now, let's continue to walk this new path and not regress for a while.

Whitney says:

Now I want to address the subtle, and not-so-subtle twists of my words, and attempts to mislead readers. First, by not posting my article in full, Salaud sets the reader up to read hir rebuttal before the piece that inspired it. That's not what I think of as honest or well-intentioned - it's the equivalent of loading the dice. S/he claims that by not posting it, s/he is just following policy. I don't buy it.

I think accusing me of trying to mislead readers is unfair. That's the last thing I would want to do since I accused Whitney of it. As mentioned in at least one comment to this article already I put the link to the original article in the first line of the article (before the article even starts really). I never mentioned anything about policy in any of my posts on MY posting of the article. I'm not sure where that came from. Notice that the link to my rebuttal on the US feature and UC IMC is a tiny little thing, that someone had to point out to me, because I didn't see it. If you want to talk about honest or well-intentioned Whitney should ask her friends at UC and US/NYC to reload the dice for my response on their sites if fairness is what Whitney really wants. In terms of policy, that OTHERS might enforce, we don't actually feature anything that's not local original content. Our feature column, which has new articles appearing almost every day, has almost exclusively local original content which serves our community. This is something that Whitney seems to be advocating for, yet when we have a clear policy to do it, she doesn't buy why we would want to enforce it. It seems that non-local reposts from corporate media (Alternet) have generally only gotten a link in a feature in the past.

I'm just going to say a summary of things about the hate posts (and Portland specifically). I am a Jew. I will not stand for nazi or facists hate posts on Portland or any other indymedia site. I know the people who enable the Portland site very well. I know that not one of them would let a newswire post like that stay up, if they caught it. Whitney simply has not done the research about the current state of things at Portland. The person from whom she has gotten an e-mail most likely has not been directly involved in the collective effort for some time. I can't verify this, but I am pretty sure. If I'm not right, I'm sure I'll get the next e-mail. Portland indymedia gets hundreds of posts a week. However, what is different from a lot of sites is that a great percentage of these posts are legitimate, local and/or original content or decent reposts. I do a little site work from time to time and I can verify this. Whitney and others can believe it or not, but at our meetings we when we talk about post moderation, we are talking about things in the context of the sheer effort to read or even skim everything. We get better and better at catching these hate posts. One of the things coming out of the indymedia projects, from a technical side, is the evolution of filtering hate posts and things like them. Whitney makes it sound like Portland, or anyone who enables the site, somehow agrees with the content of the hate posts (7 out of 10,000) and deliberately leaves them up. That's misleading and callous and just not true. It may have been true when she was in Portland, but not now. Whitney is talking about the people I know well and she is wrong. That's it. Just wrong. Let me just catch the person whom I know who agrees with these hate postings.

Whitney says:

Salaud also says that "She characterized her points as being about grammar, hate posts, and access for underserved communities. These may not have been her true points or motivations, but it's what she said."

I don't know what it would mean to "characterize" my points, and I certainly didn't "say" that those were my points. I wrote an article, which was about, among other things, effective communication and some things that detract from it. It was not an article about hate posts or bad grammar.

To characterize one's points means that one opens a paragraph, says explicitly this is the next point one would like to talk about, or otherwise signals this is a point that one is trying to make. It's hard to assume one is not trying to make a point about hate posts and grammar when one spends about 6 paragraphs on them combined. It's just my opinion about effective communication, without being a personal attack against Whitney, that to write an article about "effective communication and some things that detract from it" and not an article "about hate posts or bad grammar", it would be best to leave the parts about hate posts and bad grammar out so that people can concentrate on your central point, and especially leave those parts about hate posts and grammar out if they amount to unnecessary misleading personal attacks that will just serve to further make readers miss your central point. I would say that grinding a personal axe and/or singling out people you are supposedly trying to work with or constructively critique in a public forum detracts from effective communication. This statement certainly has to be true. Grinding axes and singling out may be good "journalism", but it doesn't encourage trust or understanding. In the indymedia world, which should be free from hierarchies or other such, trust and understanding is all we have.

Whitney says:

And while we're on the subject of communication: Reading IS communication, Salaud - communication between writers and readers. It's communication that is mediated by time, and distance, and paper, and sometimes things like editors, publishing houses, money, distributors, book stores, infoshops, etc. Most communication is mediated in some way or other, (and let's please not pretend that participating in an IMC discussion is somehow less mediated than reading when you've also got the electric companies, the folks who made your browser, and your computer, the telecom that provides your connection, bla bla bla)

But, reading is only ONE HALF of written communication. Whitney - a fair and just communication, without power and access mitigating, must be between writers and readers in the same locus (place), thus with equal power to share their points. If you are standing on a stage with a microphone in a stadium and I am standing outside the stadium on the street with just my voice, you may have told and I may have responded, but this is not fair. We must both use the same or similar microphone in the same or similar place so that the same people can hear us. This is what I think Whitney is missing. If LiP magazine broadcasts someone's writing, that is the writing part, it get's distributed through the internet and in bookstores and cafes and has money behind it to make it pretty. This is the microphone on the stage in the stadium. What are the readers then supposed to do have equal voice to speak back to the writer and to the other readers? This is the person outside the stadium on the street with only their voice. We want to get as close to an unmediated media as we can get. Clearly, if LiP magazine would publish in their entirety any and all responses to an article that were written by readers, then it would be ok to talk about the communciation being between writers and readers, without worrying about access and voice.

Indymedia, has the challenge of rising to that level of unmediated communication, for those that participate. Not only is this a theory, but it is also true. Let's not pretend that indymedia doesn't do it. When Whitney's article was posted in whole (I assume) to UC IMC, anyone could read it and anyone could respond to it in whole, un-edited. You will not see all the comments and responses to Whitney's article in the next issue of LiP, in whole, un-edited. That is the obvious. Things aren't equal between the different means and vehicles for doing media. Indymedia IS more unmediated communication between readers and writers. It is probably the best in the media domain, except for face to face communication where everyone shares the same microphone and has the same apparent volume. Print publication has always been a one-sided communication, make any small allowances for letters to the editor (geez) that you want. It still is.

Whitney says further:

I certainly didn't encourage passive consumption of my article, nor did Brian encourage passive consumption of LiP. We seek to engage our readers, or audience, or community, or whatever you'd like to call it. We set out to communicate, and, thankfully, lots of people are joining in and communicating with us.

I'm not saying that Whitney wants passive consumption of her article, but using a money making print medium (LiP) definitely DOES encourage passive consumption of the article. I'm not saying that the article WAS passively consumed. It wasn't. Luckily, we have indymedia as vehicle from which to respond. Without it, where would we go to respond on anything like equal footing? If Whitney or Brian did not want to encourage passive consumption they could do many things, but primarily, A) Use indymedia or something like it as the vehicle so that people could respond on the same terms as the writers wrote or B) Print any and all responses, in their entirety, in a following issue of LiP. One's readers, audience, community (I hate those words because they are so passive) must be enagaged on equal footing. It is not fair to engage them where you have more voice. You all set out to communicate, but unfortunately, we cannot join in and communicate with you on equal footing. We do not have the money to print and distribute our own issue of LiP with our critiques and approvals. Our critiques, approvals, and contributions will fall silent upon most of the ears of the LiPs readership.

Why is this point, which seems so obvious, so hidden? I think it must be because we have accepted this status quo for so long we never question it anymore. Like our represtentational government system, we have grown to accept the mediation and difference in voice and say perhaps even that it cannot be changed. There are alternatives like indymedia, let's use them as our primary vechicle. Would one be slumming to publish one's article on indymedia exclusively and not to get that advantage in voice that is afforded by an, at least, nationally distributed publication? We must act in they we want to see the world work.

Whitney says:

I recognize the potential of open publishing, and I believe in the power of storytelling - otherwise I wouldn't have spent three years of my life co-editing a book comprising 55 stories from 26 countries—stories that were written, with few exceptions, by unknown writers. I also know that, as Thoughts suggested in hir recent post, not everyone has the luxury of spending lots of time reading through mountains of posts to the newswire. Open publishing is neat, and it has a lot of faults. But I never suggested that a solution to those faults is that all Indymedias should have editors correcting and fact-checking all posts, nor that everyone who posts should be sure they write in AP style. I sure don't.

I truly believe that Whitney does believe in the power of storytelling and is trying to help in some way. Whitney's response seems to me to try to fend off personal attacks on her. I don't come to attack her. I am sure she has and does much good. I just disagree with the solutions that she proposes to indymedia's very real problems. Not everyone has the luxury of spending lots of time reading through posts to the newswire. The fact that there are lots of posts to the newswire of local original content (at least in Portland) is NOT one if it's faults. That's backwards speak. The fact that so many people are now writing and that it is hard to keep up with them is its greatest STRENGTH. Is that easy to be seen? The solution to the problem of not being able to read so much writing is NOT to limit that writing to a few "good" sources, especially not print media. That's exactly what we are fighting against. The tyranny of a few sources of information bringing the population at large to its knees and keeping it there. We are, as a culture, starving for information in a sea of it. It's the fault of our oppulence. When we quench the thirst to finally write something, we gorge. That is our america, perhaps with global media companies and traditional american "journalism" exported, that is our world.

The way we solve the problem of sorting out what an individual wants to read from the mountain of writings is by rising to the challenge and getting better at providing new tools that allow an individual to make those choices. For instance, at Portland we are working on a, yet unreleased, version of the newswire that will allow a user to quickly separate local from non-local and reposts from original. Users can already just look at posts on topics that interest them. These are not necessarily novel solutions on the web in general, but we are doing it for a different purpose, in a different way. Also, let's, in the broader indymedia context, stop talking about the audience, some passive mass that supposedly has some collective will, and let's focus on empowering the individual who comes to the site and writes or reads something.

Whitney says:

I don't know too many people who use any Indymedia site regularly. I lived in Portland for three years, and didn't know many folks there who use their local site either. Over the years, in my work and in my travels, I started asking people why. Their answers became the foundation for my article—an article that is, of course, just one person's opinion (people keep slamming it on that basis, as though their own posts were somehow more than that),...

It is so ironic that you are speaking about Portland here. To us it seems misleading and insulting. But, giving the benefit of the doubt, it could just be that Whitney hasn't checked the current facts about Portland. Portland is actually, today and not when Whitney lived here apparently (even given the selectivity bias and anecdotal nature of her interviews during that time), a site used very much regularly by the community. A community that I can't personally thank enough for having the courage and foresight to turn it into what it is now. Portland indymedia is only its posters, the same way you can't have a school without students (I'm not trying to imply any power relationship here). No writers, no readers. You can have writers without readers, but can't have readers without writers. Writing is primary.

I think the only thing, as I said before, that separates Whitney's opinion from others' opinions is that hers was broadcast widely in a money making print publication as well as Alternet, and indymedia. As a symptom of our media sickness, when something gets published in that way, it lends it not only more voice, but it also tends to attach to it more authority. This is because a common reader feels that someone(s) have put their money into putting it on a printing press and distributing it and because an Editor, who commonly is thought to have some authority in choosing the good from the bad, the important from the trival, and the factual from the opinion, has chosen it. So, yes, I agree that the article is just Whitney's opinion, as much as my articles are just my opinion. But, all things are not equal then. Her opinion is couched in the mystique of "journalistic" authority and perhaps considered pure analysis for a great deal of its readers, while my opinion, I believe, is more informed (or if not, more appropriate) for indymedia and characterized (at least by herr Editor) as been purely opinion and not analysis to a great deal of its readers.

Whitney says further:

More on personal opinions: In Salaud's response called "Picky," I found it interesting that s/he sets up a dichotomy of "Her assumption" vs. "Correct assumption." I'd like to know why and how Salaud's personal opinion gets transmogrified into being the "correct" one.

My opinion didn't get transmogrified (I like that word) into being the correct one. I feel and still feel it IS the correct one. I cannot apologize or back pedal on that. I feel passionately and sincerely that my solutions are best. I think there is right from wrong. I'm not saying that those who disagree are bad people or that we shouldn't work together, or that our opinions can't co-exist, they obviously do, but neither do I think they are proposing the right solutions. But, I'm sure open to some well thought out reasons, new visions, of why indymedia should apply "journalism"'s status quo models to our work. But, not just a restatement of why they work in other contexts and assumption without real analysis of why they would work for indymedia. We want true unmediated passionate information. And, by hook or by crook we will. But, can we concencrate on hook?

Whitney says:

Another example of Salaud putting words in my mouth: "Whitney is the one saying that to be exemplary means you must be like UC, NYC, North Texas IMC, not me." I said nothing of the sort. .... Exemplary, to me, means different things for different communities. I did not and do not advocate a cookie-cutter model of media making, and resent having my words twisted so.

Whitney put these in her Exemplary IMCs section at the bottom of her article, to which I was refering. Was I dreaming? I've got to stop staring at this computer. My eyes must be going bad. Perhaps Whitney might argue, "it depends on what you mean by 'say'." I'm sorry to get personal here. I want to avoid that in this article. But, accusing me of twisting (and I don't mean the dance) is a personal attack. I don't turn the other cheek very well, if you haven't noticed.

I won't say much about the cities list other than to re-iterate things I said in a comment here. I think the cities list is a side point. But, it takes the form of a singled out critique against Portland in Whitney's article. I think the cities list can take some getting used to and there's lots of room for improvement. It is just a starting point. But, I think it is like learning another language or learning the metric system (for 'yanks). It's good medicine. It moves away from our isolationist and imperialist ways of thought. Just the practice of trying to figure out where "things are now" leads in that direction.

I will say that mostly the REAL reason the people who don't like the cities list at Portland don't like it is because Portland dares to do something different and be autonomous and brave in that action. No one, even dissenters, really like difference, dissent, and autonomy. It's something to get used to for sure.

Whitney says:

Salaud also says that by being "picky" s/he is actually flattering or being respectful of me. I must say I didn't feel flattered or respected in the least when s/he (though with this, I suspect maybe he) referred to me, demeaningly, as "miss Whitney." Would s/he be so quick to belittle me if I wrote with a male or gender-neutral name?

I think it was not flattering to use "miss" there instead of "Ms.". I apologize. But, don't throw that hand waving gender bias at me. That's not fair. I took Whitney's article as real, serious, and dangerous. I responded to it, what I consider respectfully and flatteringly, point by point. When someone takes the time, sacrifice, and careful thought to respond to me in any type of communication, I consider that flattering. Believe me, and you can laugh, but I've spent a lot of time responding here, which I do not feel has been wasted, to Whitney, Awehali, and to my indymedia comrades. Whitney's gender has nothing to do with how I respond. That accusation is certainly not flattering and is divisive. In fact, because of my politics about gender identity I try to avoid gender pronouns altogether. Of course, I don't always do that, no one is perfect. I appreciate a "Hir" and a "Ze" every now and again. But, I frankly prefer that you just call me a Salaud. Which I am sure you want to by now.

I want to conclude by saying very clearly that as to the people involved in this discussion, Whitney, Awehali, and all the other posters, I value them and respect them. I value and respect all people trying to get a different voice, a socially just voice, to be heard through print, web, radio, and video that take money. I don't consider that indymedia, but I do consider them allies. I value and respect all the people doing indymedia work in UC and NYC. I consider them comrades. We have much more alike than different. In fact, there's only one person involved around NYC IMC that I can't call a brother or a sister, because he won't let me. There will always be those.

I still disagree about the solutions to indymedia's problems and feel that the best directions for us are the one's that I have discussed. I hope that my other indymedia comrades in the network will agree with me, of course. I may only post a time or two more, if there's some sort of personal attack or a really good NEW point raised. But, I look forward to another round of these discussions perhaps online, but perhaps even better face to face over some beers at the next indymedia conference.

-END-

ps. Ok, so this wasn't that short. I owe you all a beer or vegan nachos for reading all the way through. Youth Unite!

I am again going to take the road, which I think is most respectful, and I will respond to Brian Awehali's response one piece at a time.

Awehali says:

the frame of salaud's response is, in its title and argument, manipulative and just plain wrong. Nowhere in the piece does Jen argue -- and no one at LiP would argue -- that ANYONE should take ANYTHING in the "direction" of corporate media. (Whatever that hopelessly broad phrase even really means). This is a sloppy charge that sets up a false binary that gets no one anywhere. This is simply a dumb and inexact point. And salaud made it part of the title of hir response.

Being or mimicking corporate media means to mimick their idea of journalism, their internal hierarchical structures (chief editor, publishers, section editors, writers, apprentices, ad sales, etc.), and the way they support themselves, namely adverstisements. Whether or not Lip magazine is officially incorporated or whether Z magazine is incorporated has nothing to do with whether they mimick corporate media's MEANS of producing media. It is the means that I am focusing on all through my article and in my critique of mimicking corporate media in general. The PRODUCT of Z and The NY Times are different, but how close are the means?

This is what I see as corporate mimicking of means. From one corporate media source to the next the product is different and the people they get ads from are different, but how different are they really if they do things the same? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, even if the poo smells different, it's still a duck.

So what I am talking about is not a binary. It is a continuum along which something mimics corporate media or corporate "journalism", more specifically. You can frankly call it "vexar holligander" or whatever you want, if the MEANS are similar, even if the SCALE is different, with a little luck and enough subscriptions, it will go right to the same place as NYT or NPR.

Media isn't independent or "non-independent" because people have to pay for it. That actually has no bearing on political or intellectual "integrity" whatsoever. Having to charge for something doesn't mean its de facto "profit driven." It means it costs money to produce media. What makes it independent are the values that guide and inform it, as well as its internal structure. Making any assumptions about LiP, for example, without bothering to consider anything beyond whether we sell it or not, is just a laughable mental shortcut. (Note: Whitney was not paid anything for this piece, and our core editorial group works on an all-volunteer basis, often contributing our own scarce funds).

Media is not independent or mimicking corporate media (money media, vexar holligander, etc.) because people have to pay for it. Yes, it does cost money to produce media. No, it doesn't mean it's necessarily profit driven. However, it's not independent, if it costs money for a writer to get published, and if money that it costs to produce the media doesn't come from the writer themself. Ad money makes a publication money media, non-independent. It is dependent on something else to make things go.

Writing your own book, printing it with your earned money or with money given to you without exchange, and distributing it yourself is independent media. Which I do and hold copyrights to some material. This is not indymedia, nor should it be. Having a band, playing shows where your labor is involved, using that money to help other bands, producing your own record, distributing that record yourself and managing your own affairs is an independent label. Ad money and that which does not come from the labor of the individual or group is not independent. Distribution deals are not independent...etc, etc. Don't go crying "binary, binary", that is a mental shorcut and dismissive tactic for sure. This is also a continuum.

If you make a profit and that some of that money goes into your pocket for things other than more printing, that's profit driven. You may call it "profit ridden", if you don't see it as what is driving. But, go down that path and it will be driving, I assure you, when a publication can't get the amount of distribution that it once enjoyed. That's when one sells out. It IS a dark path. Selling out is real. Greed is real.

Expecting your audience to NOT rely on you to sort out fact from fiction is a complete abdication of your responsibilities as a journalist. When the NYT publishes bullshit about WMDs or the like, "we" rightly criticize them for it. (We also understand that THEIR mission, unlike OURS is to SERVE, not CHALLENGE power).

Indymedia is trying to put "journalists" in the sense you are describing out of business. The power relationship where a reader must rely (or be dependent on) on a single or few widely distributed writer(s) to decern the facts is what we should be trying to erase. Especially, when we create a professional class of "journalists" whose facts, because they get paid, are given more authority. That is the relationship that is created by the word "journalist" and its means. My responsibility as an indymedia enabler is different, my mission is different, I am here to serve a WRITING community of people struggling to be their own, truly independent, media and to identify and challenge the power relationships, access issuses, and assumptions created from "journalism." I rightly criticize those that still hold to "journalism", a shit stained and sinking ship and I hope that is a service.

As for spelling... well, regardless of where you fall in the language usage camp, it's hard to get around one of the best points Whitney makes in her piece, about communication and its definition. Our audience has to be kept in mind at all times, since just telling isn't communication at all, and it's certainly not effective media. And attention *should* be paid to their likelihood of being able to understand what a journalist writes.

Let me say again, if it isn't obvious, that just reading isn't communication at all. Just reading is not effective media or communication at all. Just reading is the current model of "journalism". It's disempowering. No tree falling, no one heard it.

We must keep those we serve in mind (what Awehali calls, passively, an "audience"). Keeping who we serve in mind for indymedia means creating an atmosphere that is empowering to new writers and to writers who have little voice in our society, though they be good writers. Once they have a lot of voice and means to produce their own media, indymedia's service is complete. I hope the differences in framework that I talked in my article are becoming more clear and more exact.

Spellchecking and things of such nefarious ilk are merely tools for communication. Arguing that journalists (of any type) should disregard correct spelling, or that those who advocate the use of a spellchecker are somehow "elite" is just puritanical activist navelgazing drivel. No one's saying people have to KNOW how to spell "correctly" -- but what about hitting, oh, two buttons on even freeware word processing software, and spending, maybe, 5 minutes to correct misspellings? I think any argument against this can safely be set down, with a gentle pat on the head, in the "laziness" category.

I'll thank you not to pat my head from on high. Creating an atmosphere where someone who is too lazy (like that street bum...and why can't he just get a job?) has a barrier to publishing and being featured is not possible for indymedia. One's who advocate the use of a spellchecker are not just somehow "elite", they become the elite when they create a forum that serves them and reflects their advocacy as the standard or status quo. This, of course, alienates and disempowers those who can read it and between the lines all too well, but would not feel like they could write it. It is a apathetic liberal self-rationalizing short-sighted newspeak to not see or want to see this very real power relationship. If indymedia enablers can't see this, it would amount to not keeping in mind the community we serve.

There are many other parts to this line of argument about power. I’ll throw some quick ones here. Language and power. History of journalism and the MEN that created it vs. the telling styles of WOMEN. History of journalism and the WHITE MEN that created it vs. the telling sytles non-whites…non-white men. You can argue till your face turns blue that without grammar and spelling there is no good communication but it always a side point. What encourages good communication when you are listeners is your intent and attention. If you really care what those people with bad spelling and grammar are saying you will hear it. If you don't, you will ignore and stick to reading that which reflects to you yourself over and over on into infinity. Nothing revolutionary there.

Bowing to a definition of journalistic integrity or political credibility that requires taking no money for your work leaves out those who can't afford to spend countless hours of their lives writing for free rather than working to do pesky things like feed, clothe and house themselves and their possible families. It's dumb. It smacks of people too afraid, ignorant, or insecure in their own political analysis or conviction to engage the complex issues of our times with a semblance of intellectual honesty.

Continuing to speak of changing your life and living it an accordance with your political analysis and conviction "rather than working to do pesky things like feed, clothe and house themselves and (their) possible families" as a impossible or unrealistic, leaves out and certainly does not encourage those who want to become something other than wage slaves. This point of view is not only dumb, it's dangerous, and it continues the cycle of oppression. This point of view smacks of people too afraid, ignorant or insecure, with little political analysis or conviciton to unchain themselves from the "complex issues of our times" (read capitalism and imperialism). I know and am encouraged by people I have met and groups that I have only heard about that have had the courage, foresight, and conviction to stay the course and to sacrifice money in order to get more time to do their political work. Do you want to change the realities of oppression, stagnation, and destruction or do you want to engage them as they are with "intellectual" honesty? Indymedia must build a true alternative and live what it wants its society to be.

Another perpspective on this is brought by PDX Dragon HERE :

For folks like Jennifer Whitney, the desire for making money as a journalist, forces them to condemn a true peoples media, overtly, or covertly. There is a conflict of interest in empowering people to tell their stories because that would reduce the chance to retain a paid position. .... Beware the person who tells you that you need them as a go between and who profits from it! The priest and the journalist are similar in this respect. Journalism is an ingrown institution. Concerned about their own self image and standing. That is one reason for the dogma of objectivity, because it fosters the pattern of content provider and consumer which is necessary for the paycheck. It subtly keeps people in the passive role.

Awehali says:

It's unfortunate that this debate about money and media essentially comes down to "be realistic and relevant" vs. "be right." I mean, OF COURSE money is a usually corrosive influence on media!

Is LiP magazine somehow immune to this corrosive influence? Why not have the courage and foresight to avoid the corrosive influence all together? "But, how can we get our easily acessible print message of our writers out to the largest possible audience?", you say. Don't get your unsustainable tree killing product out to the most people. Think small, think local. If not think about a sustainable alternative. One sustainable alternative is the digital medium. The digital medium has access problems. Focus on fixing those access problems to make it both more sustainable and more accessible. The side effect of fixing the access problems for media will be closing the information divide between have's and have not's. That's a double winner. Let's not go down the same road with the same methods, we'll end at the same point. Every publication has its price.

- salaud wrote, of Jen's (humorous) statement about the attractiveness of "counterrevolutionary" "restrictive site managers, editors, or word-count limits": "Those things are still counter-revolutionary. Of course, the author of the article finds them appealing. The article itself is counter revolutionary. The article is not really pro imperialist or anything like that, but simply comes from a reformist or status quo point of view. The point of view of the article and arguments leading from it can be best be summed up by saying, "indymedia should be a reform of the way corporate media does things, writing in the same style with the similar editorial criteria." This is not to say that some editorial policing of an indymedia site are not necessary for pragmatic reasons."

a) Jen wasn't saying those things *weren't* counterrevolutionary, and was, in fact, making a humorous and rhetorical point to set up a transition. I believe about 90% of the folks who read this article will get the oh-so-subtle nuance that salaud seems to have missed, perhaps willfully

I have to call bullshit here. She wasn't saying those things weren't counterrevolutionary. She was saying, "Now I find them appealing." What is so subtle about, "Now, I find them appealing"? If the joke was that she did find them counterrevolutionary, perhaps Awehali missed subtlety of the fact that she nows finds them appealing, that by extension her current position is counterrevolutionary. I certainly didn't willfully miss anything. I'll lob that ball back in Awehali's court on this one.

b) There is NOTHING in Whitney's argument that's reformist or status quo in any meaningful way. The "counterrevolutionary" aspersion is so debased and subjective, in this context, when articulated this sloppily, that it strikes me as comical. Arguing for effectiveness and discussing ways to actually be more effective -- whether you agree with the article's arguments or not -- is not tantamount to being counterrevolutionary. And just because salaud wants to offer hir ill-conceived interpretation of Jen's piece doesn't make it so. It's opinion masquerading as analysis.

There's NOTHING? Then that must have been a hella-revolutionary article and I must have just been asleep. I don't agree with the her article's arguments. Specifically, her solutions to her valid critiques of indymedia. But, plainly her solutions ARE a restatement of the status quo. As a courtesy, please state her solutions and frameworks to the current problems of indymedia and show how these are somehow different from the status quo of the principles of "journalism."

Further, what Awehali is trying to do by saying my article is "opinion masquerading as analysis" is to invoke a chimeric distinction from "journalism" to discredit my article. This is exactly what I (and PDX Dragon) were illustrating about the power relationships created by those that are trying to be "journalists". It means hiding behind and using "journalistic" principles as weapons against those that would speak truth other than them or agaist them. Everyone knows that there is hardly any distinction in "journalism", and especially truly corporate (as in INC, LLC, LLP, Sole Proprietarship), between opinion and analysis. The both inform and influence each other. I am transparent about it, Awehali tries to use it as a shield and a sword. Somehow we are supposed to believe that Awehali's piece is not personally motivated opinion and analysis at the same because he is a "journalist" and Editor and mine is.

And, um, salaud, are you noting the internal contradiction of your charges against Jen's piece, as you articulate them in this paragraph, and your statement that ***some editorial policing of indymedia sites is necessary for pragmatic reasons?***

There is no contradiction to be had. The pragmatic policing that I am speaking of comes from a different framework. Portland gets hundreds of posts a week, alot of them re-posts of corporate and other articles, duplicates (accidental and deliberate), and deliberate attemps to reduce the functionality of the site. It is pragmatic for us to put the re-posts off the newswire in a separate section, leave only one copy of duplicates, and remove deliberate attempts to reduce the functionality of the site. This is NO WAY means editing of articles, choosing not to feature an article on the basis of its grammatic and spelling content, or on any other basis similar for which Whitney is encouraging. There are still obviously parts of the editorial policy which are not based on pragmatism for an indymedia (such as Portland) to not leave hate posts on the newswire.

For the record, the copyright statement at the end of the UCIMC version of the piece is kind of a non-copyright statement. Jen "owns" her copyright for her work, and the UCIMC reproduced it, as the statement says, without any "authorizations." LiP does, in fact, place a copyright notice on articles that appear on our site, but it's important to note that this is a matter of strategy, not capitulation to capitalist conceptions of intellectual property. We do it mostly so people who want to reprint stuff that's appeared in LiP are compelled to email us and ask! We want to know about it! I don't think we've ever turned down a fellow non-profit or grassroots media project when they've asked to use something from LiP. But automated corporate "content aggregators," as well as some who would seek to undermine or co-opt our efforts, are somewhat slowed by copyright notices.

First let's take the quotation marks off of "owns". Jen owns her copyright. I own my copyrights. Let's not pretend what they are and why we did it? Most of Awehali's response is rationalization for the sacred cow of taking money and following corporate media models to make media like this paragraph.

Giving LiP the benefit of the doubt, which I think is totally proper in the case of their type of publication, if the strategy is to compell people to ask permission, why not just use a much less restrictive license? One that allows free distribution of the article for anyone not making money and compels those making money to ask permission or give them no permission at all? Even though what LiP does is not really important to me at all, my article is about indymedia, I think there are other areas more toward the radical side of the spectrum of capitulation to the capitalist conceptions that they could be taking.

In other words, if the mere presence of an automated copyright blurb at the end of an article really "sums it up" for salaud, then I think that really sums up the value and substance of salaud's critique.

- "Et tu [blank]" is ALWAYS a maudlin, overwrought gagfest. And, as is certainly true in this case, those who employ it are usually enamored of its razor without comprehending its actual meaning. What, did salaud suffer some fatal metaphorical stabbing at the hands of the murderous Joshua Brietbart? Is salaud actually taking on the figurative mantle of Julius Caesar (by way of Shakespeare)--which is deeply and humorously ironic no matter HOW you look at it--while calling Brietbart a traitor for saying, literally, that independent media needs to grow and diversify?

Again, of course, another transparent misrepresentation of what I was saying, that I would only expect to find in true "journalism." Of course, the Caesarian character is not me, but indymedia. As to comprehending its actual meaning, I was quoting from Shakespeare, a fiction, which seems to be most historical source that Awehali knows for the account of Caesar's death, which is ironic anyway you look at it. I was also more importantly alluding to the scene in Plutarch's, "The Fall of the Roman Empire", (pp 272-273 of the 1958 edition by Penquin Classics), which I have read, and to which I imagine and Shakespeare and Awehali have had access, and which I think is very instructive in the slippery slope that we go down when we capitulate little by little to the status quo.

Maybe, I should have instead quoted from the Plutarch, and made Breitbart the character of Casca who struck the first blow. Plutarch reports:

At almost the same moment the striker of the blow (Casca) and he who was struck cried out together - Caesar, in Latin, "Casca, you villain, what are you doing?" while Casca called to his brother in Greek: 'Help, brother'

Lastly, because I can't resist either, I will say that if indymedia capitulates little by little and uses the same tyrannical methods, frameworks and standards of "journalism" that some like Whitney and LiP magazine and their ilk seem to profess as solutions to indymedia's problems, I must say, as is more appropriately attributed to Brutus after putting Caesar out of business, 'Sic Semper Tyrannis' (Thus Ever to Tyrants).

-END-

post scriptum: Any chance the next time there is a sacred cow issue of LiP, that critiques of "independent" journalism such as mine will be included. Can we sacrifice that cow?