|
Parent Article: The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly: "What's the Matter with Indymedia?" |
|
Hidden with code "Duplicate post" |
|
Re: The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly: "What's the Matter with Indymedia?" |
by just another imcista
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Aug 2005
|
I agree that Indymedia is not making as much trouble as it could. But Indymedia's irrelevance is not caused by shoddy editing and writing. I question whether Jen understands Indymedia and its participatory quality and why she did not address the real problems of Indymedia.
It is ridiculous to call indymedia activists lazy. Maybe it is because Jen only knows some globe-trotting imcistas and hasn't met the other indymedia volunteers that never get mentioned and aren't usually involved in global indymedia politics. I'm referring to the people with full-time regular jobs that contribute a lot of work to indymedia centers in their spare time. An occasional indymedia volunteer like Jen, probably does not even know these people exist, because they usually don't summit hop and are not in the clique-y independent media circles.
You need to be around an IMC for long enough to know who really does the work on local sites over an extended period of time. These volunteers understand that indymedia is relied upon by groups working for radical change, hence, they feel a responsibility to keep indymedia going. There are not enough of these kinds of volunteers, and more and more of them are leaving Indymedia.
Indymedia has the potential to fulfill three purposes. One is to be ignite a participatory media revolution. Two, is to be a PR tool for left organizations. The third purpose is to create a strategic worldwide network of movement media makers and autonomous collectives. This is a lot to live up to. The problems preventing Indymedia from becoming everything it could, are not the ones Jen cites in her article.
Indymedia has demonstrated its power as a participatory communication tool in specific instances. As Josh points out, in Argentina and in NYC, communities used the IMC's as an effective way to distribute information. Unfortunately, Indymedia is not that relevant on a day-to-day basis, but I think it could be. Journalistic professionalism would not help solve the problem of Indymedia relevance as it seems Jen is suggesting, it would make it worse.
Fact-checking is important. Participatory media is also important. I don't believe the two are exclusive concepts. Putting up imperfect and sloppy articles on the front page is not an effective strategy on its own. But showing people, that yes, what they have to say is important, and yes they can tell their own stories, and yes they can have access to a news portal that reaches a lot of people, and yes they can write, and its okay if its not perfect is an effective means for change. Its called empowering people. And it is a vital part of Indymedia's mission. Information does not have to be mediated by experts or even by well-meaning lefty reporters.
I also believe that people want to communicate effectively. People want to make good videos, write excellent articles, and learn how to produce kickass audio. Indymedia centers should facilitate skill building. Providing a space for imperfect work to be read, seen, or listened to, combined with offering skill-building workshops is part of the participatory media process. Indymedia could be more relevant if it could better facilitate this process.
Providing a place for honing skills builds confidence. I've seen people transform their lives through journalism. I've seen homeless people regain self-worth by writing investigative reports and young women literally find their voice on the pirate airwaves. Participatory media is powerful and to lessen the importance of giving space for its expression is misguided.
Indymedia has many problems that Jen doesn't touch upon. Indymedia problems are the same ones infecting the rest of the "movement" in the U.S.: lack of organizers, unclear politics, unclear purpose, and bad process. I will quickly list the acute problems I see facing Indymedia, even though they all deserve a lot of analysis.
Indymedia lacks organizers. Indymedia needs more people that will facilitate skill-sharing, that will help get Indymedia off the internet and bring it into communities to utilize on a daily basis (More lowtech ideas... I've always wanted to see IMC News Bulletin boards all over the city). Indymedia needs more people that will organize meetings, facilitate discussions, take notes, do the grunt work.
Indymedia needs a better understanding of consensus, and to realize consensus isn't the best way to make decisions in all circumstance. It needs for people to take the POU more seriously. Indymedia needs to not allow abusive, controlling and patriarchal, and racist behaviour that causes people to flee collectives and causes new people to not feel welcome. Indymedia needs to understand how to accept diversity.
Indymedia needs to be able to figure out how to kick manipulative, harmful people out of collectives. Indymedia needs to curtail the technical hierarchy that has always permeated it. Indymedia needs to figure out how to keep people involved. All of these problems (except for maybe the technical hierarchy) are not unique to indymedia, but are endemic to left organization in general.
Too many IMCistas are more interested in being independent reporters themselves and using it as a career stepping-stone, or want to push Indymedia towards professionalization. I believe paying people would kill any indymedia potential that still exists. Theoretically, it sounds like salaries would allow people that can't afford to work on Indymedia to participate. In actuality, the people that would get the salaries would most likely be the people already putting in a lot of time, specifically because they can afford to. Please show me a media institution in the U.S. that is a genuine threat to the status quo that pays people a regular salary and gets regular funding.
Indymedia does not need to move into the more professional realm. Accurate spelling and professional journalistic standards without process, a participatory vision, and organization will not make real trouble either. Solving Indymedia's real problems is the only way to move towards relevance, and that will take a lot more than a spell-check. |
