|
Parent Article: on the money |
|
Hidden with code "Duplicate post" |
|
re: Narco News / real space |
by ald
ald---a-t---riseup (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
02 Sep 2006
|
hi all,
i'm involved with the portland collective now, and did a lot of work with philly for 5 years. i am posting this here because i want to contribute to the public discussion, and do not intend to disrespect the points the uc-imc folks are making about process. i do appreciate this page being set up. i also hope the group looks at the notes at some meeting because although there is some sound and fury, it seems like there has also been some good dialogue.
i am motivated to post in response to deva's post about narco news. i find it very interesting. he explains how they pay journalists, and then says:
> Narco News is not an IMC but it sounds a lot more like the spirit of indymedia
> than having a bunch of paid jobs that have nothing to do with media or reporting
i guess i think all different sorts of labor should be valued, though, because it takes all sorts. and i think it should be up to the local imc to identify what sort of labor, if any, they need to pay people for in order to build indymedia -- which to me is essentially about people claiming the ability to tell the story of the world they live in rather than be spoon fed a master narrative about it. making this shift -- from being spoon fed to re-claiming our voice and minds and eyes -- this will take all different sorts of interventions, and the shape of those interventions will be different in different places, depending on the specifics of the situation.
although i do think that we should do as much labor as volunteers as possible, i also feel ill-equipped to assess the specifics of the uc-imc's situation. i really respect that they engage so many people off the web, which many imcs seem unable to do, and which ESPECIALLY in the US is so incredibly important -- us activists who spend 80% of their movement work online are not going to help the global movement. activist on the other hand who are engaged in their communities, in touch with the things that cause people to listen or to cover their ears -- these people have the potential to really help in critical situations. i don't know of any other US imc that engages nearly the number of folks offline as the uc-imc does. many do wonderful wonderful work, but this particular thing, the uc-imc is good at. and if they think that in order to keep it up they need to pay a few people small stipends, i would want to give them the benefit of the doubt about it. that is not to say that the concerns about how money changes equations shouldn't be raised. i think they should, and i hope that despite the sound and fury of some of these posts the UC-imc folks can find a way to communicate in a dialogue-oriented spirit with the network about this issue.
but again, i want to return to deva's post... i am intrigued by the proposition that nacro news model might contribute to the expansion of militant journalism, the kind which we all want the indymedia network to spawn. i think i agree with deva that it might... but maybe in particular situations, and not necessarily as a regular thing. what i mean is, it may be that in a certain place and time, a narco news model could move the indymedia "tactic" forward by infusing relevant coverage of an issue that would otherwise have slipped below the radar or been distorted beyond recognition. the experience of seeing good coverage of the issue (passionate tellings of truth!) could be transformative to a community, making space for a reclaiming of voice that would otherwise be impossible. i think such a model would be most effective if it also included intensive training in media-making skills as a quick follow up to whatever set of political circumstances is being covered. taken together, i could see such a model fundamentally shifting conversations.
and lets not lose the material, experiential level of this:: we want to fundamentally shift conversations. we don't want to create a pure thing for the sake of itself. we want to Fundamentally Shift Conversations -- and then more.
amy |
