|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
Why IndyMedia Sucks |
Current rating: 0 |
by George
(No verified email address) |
06 Nov 2001
Modified: 07 Nov 2001 |
|
IndyMedia is no more independant than real media. |
|
Everyone on here is blocked by thier own ideas of what is right and wrong, and you are all mad because the media that reports the real news doesn't have time for your pity agenda. Obviously if any of us gave a damn we would have your stupid little snid bits on CNN, but we don't so there isn't any of your crap. If you want to call yourselves real reporters, especially the Indy in B/N get some real stories with real fact instead of going to websites that aren't true. Anyone can post a website and put info on their, that doesn't mean its news worthy. PS get a life |
|
This Post Proves ONE Thing |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Nov 2001
|
George,
Your post does prove one thing about how indepedent IMC is. Any idiot can post on IMC and, as your post shows, occasionally they do.
Since you're so satisfied with the job the dominant media does, why don't you stick to it and don't let us irritate you? |
|
I beg to differ... |
by D. Hill
dhill (nospam) bellarmine.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
06 Nov 2001
|
If you want to get right down to the nuts and bolts of the matter, conforming to the definition of "independent" isn't very hard these days. All you have to do is wholly own and operate your organization. None of the author's vaunted "real media" comes even close to meeting the criteria. (Good luck seeing a news story about rBGH on Fox News; thanks Rupert...) In fact, I can only think there's one media organization in the entire country that not partially owned by another company: Pacifica Radio. (Though if their board of directors has its way, it won't be independent much longer...)
And another thing: what does he mean by "real" reporters? I suppose if you're not shilling for Viacom or whatever corporation is using a particular media company as its private soapbox, then you're not a "real" journalist.
He does bring up one good point though, and I'm probably going to get blasted for saying this: the IMC's need to diversify their coverage. What I mean by this is that the IMC's across the world seem to be acting as a "ventricular assist" device for the diseased heart that is the corporate media; only covering those aspects of the news that the mainstream chooses to ignore for whatever reason. I think this is a good start, but we should look ahead toward the long-term goal of replacing the corporate media. I like to envision a future where ALL media is local and independent. |
|
Well put, D. Hill.... |
by John
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Nov 2001
|
....and we're open to suggestions.
The future you envision is essentially the past, prior
to corporate conglomerates. We of the various IMC's
would love to see the media corporations replaced, too,
and are striving to provide an alternative. That's all
we know to do at this point.
As for George.....George's ignorance is beneath contempt.
But at least, as ML says, he got to vent it here, for free.
Next time, George, you illiterate pissant, spend some
of your millions on a full-page ad in the New York Times.
The NYT needs your patronage worse than we do. |
|
The new IMC starts with your next post, article or piece |
by Paul R.
paul (nospam) mediageek.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
06 Nov 2001
|
George, D. Hill, et al -- a new, better IMC is as easy as you taking this opportunity to do the reporting that you would like to see done.
We all too easily fall back into being consumers, wishing that someone would produce what we want, or criticizing when what is produced doesn't seem up to our standards.
It's much harder to take the opportunity to do it better ourselves.
Thus, while many of those in the IMC mov't criticize the mainstream media, the IMC is our attempt to do it better. Success is not guaranteed, but we can't even approach it if we don't try.
Without a doubt constructive criticism is necessary for all of us to become better producers of media, not just consumers. But to just sit back and criticize is the same as just being a passive consumer, which is really what the mainstream news corporations, their parent corporations, and their advertisers want you to do. Critique all you want, as long as you keep buying.
At the IMC you don't have to buy nothin'. But to see it get better, you do have to produce.
And, George, why don't you come to the IMC and teach us how it should be done. This is a sincere invitation, not just a rhetorical one. But given that you didn't include even an e-mail address or last initial, my guess is that you're just trolling.
It's too bad, because maybe if you took responsibility for what you think is right the world could be more like you'd want it. |
|
The world..... |
by John
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
07 Nov 2001
|
.....is already as George wants it. At least the world
as it exists here in the USA. See his comment two stories
down. |
