The spirit of critique and wanting to help move indymedia forward is something I really appreciate. However, Jennifer Whitney's article, "The Good, The Bad, & (sic) The Ugly: "What's the Matter with Indymedia?" is one part critique, and two parts personal axe grinding, three parts "Ra! Ra! UC, NYC, 501-c(3) IMC" . Beyond the fact that the article is so deliberately misleading in many ways, it should be critiqued on the facts and arguments that it proposes about editorial policy and the mission of indymedia. To its credit, this article raises some of the right types of questions about indymedia's effectiveness and methods, but to its detriment, gives all the wrong answers. Rather, it gives short sighted answers or all the same 'ol answers.

Let me be transparent about the fact that I disagree with taking indymedia in the direction of corporate media and that I am using the indymedia tactic in Portland and work collectively with others here. Yes, I take the deliberate singling out of Portland personally and, Yes, she is coming from a place of personal dissatisfaction and grinding her axe using non-independent media (read "you pay for it or get paid") to broadcast her upset. I find her attitude self-congratulatory and self-important in almost every place in this article. Because the article and her comments to responses to the article put themselves in a position of being critical of people exhibiting these attitudes and so hypocritically does just the same, it deserves a good dose of its own medicine. The article, when being critical of people who use the indymedia tactic, is so much the pot calling the kettle black and the stone thrower in the glass house. At times my article may sound self-congratulatory or self-important, but it will come from a place of defense instead of offense and most importantly is not trying to deny that it feels important or wishes to congratulate itself where warranted. Lastly, I would say it to her face.

My method of rebuttal here will be to take apart the article primarily in the order in which is was written, but expanding on other issues where relevant. The structure of her article is roughly: (1) History of IMC (particularly Seattle); 2 paragraphs, (2) Introduce critique of editorial policies; 1 paragraph, (2) Give personal credentials; 1 paragraph, (3) Frustrations with indymedia; 2 paragraphs, (4) Discuss indymedia in the framework of communication and social change; 3 paragraphs, (5) Editorial Policies; 2 paragraphs, (6) Grind Axe on Portland Indymedia; 3 paragraphs, (7) Problems with communication modalities in Indymedia and NYC/UC quote; 2 paragraphs, (8) Example of Mexico City IMC; 2 paragraphs, (9) Access and Money; 3 paragraphs, (10) Indymedia as "Journalism" and rationalization of taking money including quotes from two more different NYC/UC IMCistas; 6 paragraphs, (11) Conclusion and quote from NYC/UC IMCistas; 2 paragraphs, (12) Exemplary IMCs. I will refer to quotes in the article using these rough section numbers as a guide.

Quoting from section 1:

The newborn IMC (Seattle) provided the most in-depth and broad-spectrum coverage of the historic direct actions against the World Trade Organization that fall. Despite (emphasis mine) having no advertising budget, no brand recognition, no corporate sponsorship, and no celebrity reporters, it received 1.5 million hits in its first week.

Quoting from section 1 in the same paragraph as above:

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.

Quoting from section 3:

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?

In section 3, Whitney is commenting about her frustrations with indymedia sites. She says, "The few original articles are frequently riddled with unsubstantiated claims, rumors, dubious anonymous sources, bad writing, and/or plagiarism." Firstly, the sites that do not have a lot of original articles are typically those that are run by people who are themselves the writers and have not built a community of writers beyond the collective or 501(c)3 as the case may be. Secondly, modern "journalism", corporate or otherwise money involved, even Whitney's precious BBC, are riddled with these same things. The real riddle is whether or not indymedia posters mimicking these "journalistic" practices would do things differently and for the same reasons as those journalists. Those reasons, to name a few, being; unsubstantiated claims, plagiarism, and dubious anonymous claims due to deadline pressures; rumors due to trying to stir up sales; and bad writing due to lack of passion. I worked on a school newspaper for four years and have writers and newspaper editors in my family, so I can attest to those problems as they stand in even non-corporate "journalism". We all know down what road the extension of the practice of these holds in the form of truly corporate media.

Later in section 3 Whitney says, '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.' I disagree. Most sites are certainly radical, certainly passionate, and from the standpoint that what one experiences in the world is truth, it is true. If indymedia as whole was to go down the dark path, as some are doing, towards something reformist, aligned with status quo vision of the world, and dispassionate in the "journalistic" sense it would clearly be falling short of its mission. The mission of indymedia is to enable individuals to become their own media, to give voice to the voiceless, and to create a new media community around those people. Using this as a yard stick, some measure up, some don't. Whitney's point of view barely registers on this scale.

In section 4 Whitney says, "(But) the burden to communicate effectively belongs to the active party--the teller--not the audience." Isn't the listener or audience actively engaged in any dialogue of any value? Certainly. They should be just as active in the process as the writer. This is what indymedia should, in contrast to "journalistic" practices, do. The world that Whitney apparently wants to see is one very much like the corporate/money media of today. That is, where the reader of the paper, the listener of the radio, or watcher of the TV is supposed to just sit there and have things pushed at them. On the contrary, real communication involves push and pull. Indymedia should seek to pull information from the community it serves and not push things at them.

Later in section 4 Whitney says, "And (sic) 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?" My thoughts exactly. To have respect for our audience means to appreciate their intelligence and ability to sort out fact from fiction, truth from lies, passion from rhetoric. They do not need to be spoonfed, told how to spell, or otherwise led like a horse to water as to what is the truth.

She later says, "Simply put, an unread article changes nothing." It also holds that an article that is widely read containing ideas from status quo changes nothing. Those seeds that Whitney speaks of in this article are all those passionate articles, full of spelling mistakes, that tell the writer's story in an unorganized fashion, but true to their experience, that are only read by a few. Those seeds land in the mind of someone who thought that journalism was something that you passively absorbed, done by people who get paid, who write dispassionately, and grammatically. Then that someone sees things differently and realizes that they can tell their truth also. The seeds of little status quo independent journalists are sterile, they will not grow.

Speaking about the effectiveness of writing styles Whitney says,"People don't read sloppy, unedited, or disorganized stories; they don't look at bad photographs or videos." That is certainly not the truth. Getting out my red pencil on the subject of sloppy editing and perfectionism in spelling and grammar, one should never begin a sentence with the word "and". Certainly, they shouldn't do it repeatedly throughout their article. The correct placement of semi-colons is also important for clarity. A poor use of the semi-colon is exhibited in the quote above. I also believe it's "counter-revolutionary" and not "counterrevolutionary". I would suppose that most word processing programs have grammar, as well as spelling checkers, for those interested in the finer points. I am going to give Whitney's article a 'B-' for grammar.

Section 6 is essentially an axe grinding against Portland Indymedia. I would like to respond to its claims about Portland with respect to editorial policy surrounding hate speech, but the content is so irrelevant because of its untimeliness that it's barely possible to talk about, as is obvious from the comments to the article on UC-IMC from pdximcista. I have been doing indymedia in Portland since 2002, which is after the dissolution of the previous collective structure and process with which Whitney was interacting. The attacks that Whitney mounts are against things that I have never experienced once in (3) three years running. It amounts to the kind of testimony that Colin Powell gave to the UN about weapons in the middle east. Way out of date, from a disreputable source, and deliberately used to mislead the reader. It's either that or pure laziness.

The other thing Whitney attacks Portland for in section 6 is the redistribution of IMCs on the cities list into regions that reflect non-imperialist demarcations of land. She dares not directly state whether she agrees with the intent of Portland to erase the imperialist drawn boundaries, but rather attacks the precision with which the cities where put into the correct regions. Does Whitney like the borders and names the way they are? We are not certain. But we are certain that the 15 hours that someone put into making a starting point for a non-imperialist list where not appreciated. It seems that Whitney doesn't appreciate any of the hard work of people at Portland, except in respect to technical issues.

The truth is that Portland does things well in many areas, other than just technical things. It is one of the most used sites in the indymedia network on many scales along with Italy, NYC, and Indybay, despite what Whitney may have thought about the usability of the site. Portland stands out from IMCs like NYC and UC in Portland's commitment to making indymedia about enabling posters, promoting autonomy, and not going down the dark road of mixing money with media. But, Portland doesn't stand out in this respect from most of the other IMCs. Most IMCs are coming from the same place as Portland in general, even though internal processes may be somewhat different.

Principles are very important to most Portland IMCistas and they generally find it hard to compromise on these. But, they are, at the same time, willing to work with anyone, even those that we disagree with on some issues or are reformists because we have more in common with them than we do with corpo media. Portland has well reputed video and audio groups as well. Groups that have helped to make convergences and social justice events and coverage from them possible in Sacramento WTO, Miami FTAA, San Francisco BIODEV, Cancun FTAA, New York RNC, Scotland G8, Washington DC, and other places. Portland's commitment to the indymedia network is to provide mutual aid of any kind, to create an environment where trust is more important than process, and share/learn experiences with other IMCs that will create nothing short of a revolutionary shift in media. This is how I experience myself and others in Portland IMC. I experience that with many of my comrades that I have met at other IMCs. I speak for myself only.

In section 9 about access to media Whitney says, "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." It is clear from this quote and others later about indymedia print projects that Whitney places a lot of value on the older printer model of media. This is not in itself a bad thing. But, it is also clear that Whitney does not seem to fully "get it" as far as what the indymedia revolution is really all about with respect to its new models, including digital technology.

Whitney seems to accept that printing is dependent on money and access to a printing press based on her comments about funding and use of comments from NYC about their print projects. Since the advent of modern written language, access to publication of ones writing has been very limited. There has always been a publisher that controls this access. Copies of books where at first handwritten. What books were copied and how much they cost limited access. Since the advent of the printing press more could be done. However, still access to a printing press required significant capital or significant approval from a publisher who had that capital to widely distribute ones writing. Till the advent of the digital domain and the internet, that's there things were, so far as print are concerned. Those whose voices we have heard in history, politics and culture (before tv and radio) were those that could access a printing press. Ben Franklin was a printer. His buddies Jefferson and Adams got some cheap printing deals on there writings, including the Federalist Papers and others. Marx and Engels are another example. Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital without free printing? Nope. This was closed publishing. There was, of course, open publishing in the form of community bulletin boards, word of mouth, or whatever you copy out by hand.

The use of digital media and the ability for open publishing to eclipse closed publishing (like printing) is a major part of the revolution of indymedia at this stage in the game. The critique that only those with internet access can get access to the website to post their writings is accurate. But, when compared with the lack of access, costs, burdens, and environmental waste of the printing process it looks real good. The fact that a poster to an indymedia can have their ideas accessible to others all over the world is really a total shift. Not only are these ideas widely available, but they are available along with the writings others who are concerned about social justice and the ability to have a dialogue is there.

The bottom line is that, in the scheme of things, getting something in print comes with a wide area of access problems. To print a paper costs money. The more you print the more money you need. So you have be selective about which articles and what lengths of articles you choose. Then you might have to edit even those articles for length based on layout issues. If you need enough money, you might not be able to be independent and have to get money from advertising. Then, if you want to survive you need to stay in line with your advertisers. If you piss them off you are in trouble. So, you should better not print anything they won't like. We all know where this leads. The digital era erases these access problems for the written word. Having to get access to the internet is by far less burdensome and yields more voice. This doesn't mean we have no work to do in terms of access. We just need to focus it on the right things.

In section 10 Whitney is discussing what it means to be a "journalist" and what she feels is the laziness of posters to indymedia as well as a rationalization of taking money for indymedia work. This section reminds me of the talk that Amy Goodman from Democracy Now! gave at the US indymedia conference in Austin, TX earlier this year. It just doesn't understand the audience to which it is speaking. Amy Goodman thought she was talking to bunch of people who are writing articles to websites. When, in fact, she was talking to a group of people who were hopefully trying to encourage others in their community to write articles. Same here in this section. Whitney just doesn't get the soul of indymedia. She's coming from a point of view that is just a re-hash of old models or things with which she is already comfortable. Indymedia is not, "..lacking good journalists". If anything, it is lacking enough enablers of journalism. Again, indymedia should not be about pushing content to passive readers, but pulling content from active posters. If one wants to use the old model and tactics, just start your own independent newspaper or website and write or edit the damn articles.

She also cites, "(It's) the lack of journalistic principles, and the laziness." I think what's most at issue is what our principles are and our courage to see them through. Whitney and others that share her viewpoint are frustrated with the "quality" of articles that they are seeing. But, they are mostly scared of going into uncharted territory. The process of revolutionary change requires commitment to principles, stick-to-it-tiveness, patience and courage. What we are seeing from posters to our websites today is the revolutionary shift in the way in which media is made in transition, in process. We are young yet in this more free and open expression. We should not stunt our own growth or break our own spirit because what we see now offends our sense of good writing or causes us to fear ineffectiveness. Essentially, I see Whitney's viewpoint as short-sighted, fearful, impatient, and desirous of a return to the old.

Later in the section on laziness she says:

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.

Whitney then focuses on taking money for media work.

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?

Particularly chilling in this article is a quote from Joshua Breitbart:

Indymedia's biggest problem is that it is unique. 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.

Whitney's closes the article with, "The best journalists are the ones who provoke, who pose a real threat to the status quo." I couldn't agree more. Whitney's article is just a restatement of that status quo, and as such, poses no real threat, except in its ability to divide us. One of the very last lines of the article on UC-IMC is my favorite and sums it up for me, "This article is copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner." Nuff said.

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?

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."

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.

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'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)

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!