The Sad Decline of Indymedia
national |
miscellaneous |
news report
Monday December 09, 2002 18:32
by ChuckO - Infoshop News
...
It was a great idea when the Independent Media Center opened up its
first
website for the Seattle anti-WTO protests in December 1999. The first
IMC
website came out of years of alternative and grassroots media
activism. By
a strange quirk of fate, the Seattle IMC also included something called
the "open newswire," an experiment that allowed every reader to be a
reporter, if they wanted to get involved in DIY, participatory media
production. The IMC network recently observed its 3rd anniversary and
the
100th IMC went online, but the IMC project is facing some serious
problems
which, if they aren't addressed by the supporters of the IMC network,
will
eventually destroy the wonderful idea that is Indymedia.
There are some that would argue that the Indymedia network needs a
stronger organization to address its current and persistent problems.
This
may be somewhat true, but those of us who have pressed for reforms find
ourselves at the mercy of a network of people who are afraid to step
forward and make tough decisions. It might help if there were some more
organized processes, but I see the chief problem with Indymedia these
days
to be a political one, not an organizational or technical problem.
The IMC Network has a statement of principles and so do most local
IMCs.
However, the political orientation of the IMC has never been firmly
established. Other IMC volunteers and myself have strongly argued for a
series of regional IMC meetings and conventions to resolve these
questions. The problems with the IMC's vague politics is not so much
what
ideology it should embrace, rather what ideologies and content the IMC
Network rejects and opposes. This vagueness on politics has allowed an
international network of right wingers and racists to abuse and disrupt
the IMC websites, which has harmed the IMC's functionality and
reputation
in ways that may not be fixable without stepping on lots of toes.
If you are a regular visitor to the IMC-Global website
you may have noticed some big changes
earlier
this year. The "open" newswire was moved off the front page for a
variety
of reasons. The most diplomatic reason was that many felt that the
features being created by local IMCs should be featured on the Global
website. This was a solid idea and should have been implemented despite
the other reasons. The messier reason why the open newsire was
relocated
was because the IMC Global volunteers were fighting a losing campaign
against right wing disruption of the website. This disruption aimed to
establish "free speech" space on the Indymedia websites for right wing
views and racist posts--the people doing this knew that the liberal
free
speech attitudes of most IMC volunteers would paralyze them from
implementing consistent moderation. This right wing attack also
included
the posting of constant anti-semitic content, right wing op-eds and
articles (caref! ully stripped of their source infromation), conspiracy
theories, and other crap designed to ruin the reputation of the
Independent Media Network.
I was part of the IMC Global Newswire collective during this period and
made proposals concerning a process to deal with this problems. I also
painstakenly documented the attack patterns by the right wingers and
showed that certain individuals were posting similar content at the
same
time to various IMCs. This campaign by our enemies was successful
because
the IMC volunteers refused to implement aggressive moderation and
otherwise dragged their feet until the changes were made earlier this
year.
What did we lose when the right-wingers won? First, we lost the
Indymedia
network as a public space for our activists. If you remember what the
IMC
websites were like in the year after Seattle, you will remember them as
places where activists came together to talk about issues. After the
right
wingers had their way for a year, you would commonly hear activists
complain about Indymedia and say that they didn't bother with Indymedia
anymore.
Secondly, the inability of the IMC network to take aggresive action
against racist and anti-semitic posts further damaged the Indymedia's
reputation with Jewish people and people of color. We understand that
some
pro-Israel extremists think that any criticism of Israel is
anti-semitic,
but the IMC network became a hotbed of just plain anti-Jewish articles,
opinions, and comments. Part of the problem within the IMC network is
that
most activists refused to stand up to the free speech totalitarians
within
the network, who argued that everything posted should stay visible to
the
public. I've been a free speech advocate for many years and often
considered myself to be a free speech zealot, but not even I would
argue
that our websites should provide any space for right wing and racist
views. The racists have their websites--we don't need to use our
limited
resources to promote their hideous and offensive views.
The net result of this inaction is that racist and anti-semitic views
became normalized on Indymedia websites. Sure, newswire moderators
would
remove the occasional racist rant or picture, but lots of stuff was
left
online. This normalization of racist content showed the racists and
right
wingers that they could have their way with Indymedia. It also
alienated
lots of potential Indymedia supporters. Why should a Jewish activist
participate in an alternative media project that tolerates hate speech
against that person?
I'm also convinced that the right wing posted lots of conspiracy
content
to ruin the repuation of Indymedia. I have no problem with the
occasional
conspiracy-type article posted to an IMC website, but I think there was
good circumstantial evidence that the right wing was posted conspiracy
content with the aim of damaging the reputation of Indymedia, not just
in
the eyes of the public, but in the eyes of the chief stakeholders: the
activist community (and movements).
I still remain a big supporter of the Indymedia project. The Indymedia
project has become a revolutionary force that has greatly empowered DIY
journalists, rank-and-file activists, and average working people. This
essay is not meant to criticize IMC volunteers, rather to call out to
supporters of alternative media projects to speak up and demand that
the
IMC make some tough decisions to address these vexing and persistent
problems. The Indymedia project has great potential. Let's not throw
out
the baby with bathwater in our efforts not to step on toes.
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (13 of 13)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13The way I see it, IMC is best when it allows people to *share* their views and *exchange* information. Below are my feelings (copied from a mail I sent to the IMC discussion mailing list last week):
Suggestion: Let's face the facts...
Lets accept that the site is basically a discussion forum and not be
upset about that. Indymedia is to activists what slashdot.org is to
geeks. I think Indymedia software is made for/by people from a
publishing background though (like zines, journals, papers). Either the
people aren't though, or that's not what they (we) want from the site.
Lets use discussion forum software -- right out of the box -- to solve
this problem! (hurray!) e.g. http://www.phpbb.com/
It can be changed to look more Indymedia-like of course, but more
importantly, we don't lose the "open publishing" idea. There can be a
general forum where people never need to login and can simply post their
messages as they would on any IMC today, and there would be forums where
people could only post if they have registered and logged in. I think
this way we could cut the spam in half (yuck!) right away in the more
"serious" parts of the site. We could also have some order, so
information wouldn't just get lost in that great big hole they call the
newswire archives.
If you look right now at indymedia.ie you'll see user behavior
which is more fitting of a discussion forum than an online paper. I
don't think that's a glitch in the system - I think that's how people
share information if given the chance. ...And I think its great!
The mission statement of IMC includes:
"Indymedia is a democratic media outlet for the creation of radical,
accurate, and passionate tellings of truth."
I read that to mean that the stories are *created on Indymedia*, through
cooperative discussion, dialog, debate. They're not just posted like
packages by people who have "passionate tellings of truth" for others to
make the odd comment on. Not only would that version of the statement
("...outlet for the posting of...") sound ridiculous, I'm not sure how
helpful it would really be for such a diverse community of
visitors/users as Indymedia is/has to be just talking *at* each other.
Just a thought. :-)
What do you think?
Give yourself a Gold Star for your juvenile ramblings and ability to use a spraycan.
I would agree with Chuck0 that the right-wingers have clearly set out to destroy
the useability and reputation of the IMC.
The right-wingers also tend to be well funded considering the historical and traditional
connections they have with the establishment in capitalist society. This gives them
access to considerable resources and this is where the IMC tends to suffer.
While the IMC has resources in terms of volunteer efforts of individuals, it doesn't nearly
have enough resources to employ people permanently to counter-act the right-wingers.
But then if it did, that would lead to it's own problems.
Another view to take into account, is that we cannot expect something new like the IMC to
remain unchanged. Those who were most likely to have heard about it in the first few years
were more likely to be activists and the IMC reflected that. In time more and more people
from the 'mainstream' of society have become aware of it and are less involved or even
aware of various issues and campaigns.
And so, because this pool of people have not deprogrammed themselves yet from a lifetime of
the corporate media (TV & print) with it's shallow and non-existent analysis or coverage
of issues, pre-occupation with celebs and a general advancement of the philosphy of the
individual, rat race -greed is good mentality, then it is no wonder that the amount of
stupid, irrelevant, egoistic and confused comments and articles will increase.
So what can be done? It's a difficult challenge and if it is not met, the IMC will die.
Heck, it could get so bad, that in a few year time, we could end up reading about the
merger of IMC and AOL (after the right-wingers first make a big push to commericalize it).
As a small step, I would suggest that it has more links to background articles on a whole
raft of issues and campaigns, written by those involved. These should then be linked into
a new section that might appear in some issues. So instead of the main article and comments,
we might have main article, background (perhaps composed of links only or short paragraph),
and then comments.
Other ideas might be that articles deemed to be right-wing hatred and off the wall conspiracy
stuff to be voted upon (by readers maybe or editoral team) to put up some kind of warning
requiring the original poster to identify themselves or else it will be removed.
Readers could gain voting rights by registering. This requires some thought to guard against
any abuse and whether it's even worthwhile and too much hassel.
While I am unaware of the full editorial process, it would be prudent to ensure that it's
organisation and functioning follows as an open and accountable democratic process as
possible. This might be the best insurance that right wingers don't get onboard, as they
tend to falter on the bright lights of direct democracy. And to satisfy the ultra-free speech
crowd, all posts removed, could be just simply moved away from the main pages and put in a
special archive, but still accessible.
I've posted before on the editorial list about the problem. Terry suggests registration and moderation, well there's a long history on the web of the problems of "Open Publishing". The first large scale ventures in this area started with Slashdot:News for Nerds (http://www.slashdot.org) a tech-news and culture site. Originally it was completely unmoderated in a libertarian/tech-ethos. Then username/login/registration was established in an attempt to cutdown on the flame-fests and trolling. This didn't work. Then moderation-priveleges were extended to all registered users. That didn't work because moderation was used as a weapon. Then meta-moderation was introduced along with behaviour-pattern-allocated moderation priveleges. That hasn't quite worked either but it's better.
A similar, but significantly different system was introduced by Kuro5hin:technology from the trenches (http:www.kuro5hin.org) with the differnece that moderation was open to all, that moderation didn't affect the visibility of a comment. It seems to have worked a bit better.
Still more experiments were performed with the website Advogato (http://www.advogato.org) in which users become "trusted" on the basis of a trust-metric of ratings given out by other users. It seems to be OK, but has never had the huge traffic that Slashdot has.
It Indymedia.ie wants to have public comment contributions then the problem of trolls has to be either accepted or else some sort of moderation system has to be introduced.
Personally I favour the idea of the newswire being very strictly policed: a clear statement of what is considered news (whether it's a good or bad definition) should be adhered to and anything that doesn't meet it could be shunted into some sort of "hidden area". Most importantly *discussion* in the form of comments should be clearly separated from the *news*. It should require extra effort to consciously enter the discussion. That way the presentation of "radical, accurate and passionate retellings of the truth" is preserved, a decent looking site is presented and still those that want to bicker in the discussion section can continue to do so.
I'll volunteer to be an IMC editor if something like this is implemented. Hell, I'll even help implement it.
I would love to see IMC Irl look and work more like this
there are lots of them,
and itīs very saddening.
There was one on Sunday.
itīs been edited off now.
There are lots of open wires.
Network 23 has one.
it just gets spammed with sort of people who abducted/rescued Pat C. earlier today.
but there you go.
On Sunday I invoked Punky Churchill and the guerilla gardening / RTS event of Mayday 2000 in London. I remember the indymedia coverage of that day and the indymedia journalists walking about asking people why they were there.
I attended with a small group.
one Swede teckno raver, one East German fact and figure activist " one Sardinian (then my girlfriend), one Sicilian (a gardener) , one San Franciscan (militant lesbian), and others who prefer not to be mentioned in any of my memories.
We planted a section of privet hedge that I had selected the day before, thinking it would be "well apt". We also planted some marijuana seeds that we had "unwittingly found on the number 12 bus without any intention to supply them", [they survived the clean-up and had well sprouted by autumn]. we did lots of things, made lots of iconic images and well ho-hum....
A indymedia activist on that day approaced us and asked "and why are you here?"
hmmm
we thought to ourselves. why are we here?
between us we could count probably over a few hundred hours of street based action and protest, and well over a metre of box file surveillance material made by the police et al. about us.
we thought to ourselves why are we here?
we told the pleasant young english chap and he pressed pause on his recorder and went on interviewing people. He completely missed the point of why we were there, but anyway.
Some months later indymedia u.k. lost lots of itīs usual contributors in "why didnīt we give all the reasons why pčople were there" sort of discussions.
Indymedia if it "ends" will be replaced by those who as ever have known,
we are here
because we are doing it better this time.
we do it better every time.
just wait.
The spirals will come back.
do not ever underestimate the power of play!
and less of the Israel = Nazism
coz it doesnīt and thinking so will only hinder your ultimate agenda / goals.
I like the discussions that take place here. I lurk much more than post but am impressed by and enjoy the debates (well some but whatever).
I would oppose this becoming a forum because that less
I like the discussions that take place here. I lurk much more than post but am impressed by and enjoy the debates (well some but whatever).
I would oppose this becoming a forum because that less
I like the discussions that take place here. I lurk much more than post but am impressed by and enjoy the debates (well some but whatever).
I would oppose this becoming a forum because that lessens the possibilities. Cleanly take the discussions off site (An editorial push to a proper forum or boards site with notice and thread locking). But we have to have a comment section for peer review. This, IMHO, is vital to an open publishing wire: and can give the background and commentary on the story in a groundbreaking way.
But this is media - there is an editorial
function not just moderation. Intelligent editing (not censorship - linking and referencing) can take the data here, the raw information and turn it into knowledge, wisdom.
And people who talk the technocratic mumbo jumbo should talk to each other and figure out how to use it.
Open Source = Open Publishing = Open Editing = Open Media
The comment above wasn't by me. Even leaving aside the content, the absence of necessary punctuation and inappropriate capitalisation should give the game away.
The primary requirement is that the first news posting abides by good journalistic principles. Anything subsequent should be free debate on the topic. Perhaps a system whereby to post news requires login, but subsequent comment does not.
The problem is not, as Terry notes patronisingly "this pool of people have not deprogrammed themselves yet from a lifetime of
the corporate media". It is rather this sort of self-righeous attitude that prompts knee jerk responses - not everyone who disagrees with you Terry does so because they are slaves to the capitalist system (and I don't know what your politics are by the way). It is this blinkered self-belief that means news is instantly interpreted, in the actual news story, to suit the writers own political agenda.
The problem is the presentation of propaganda in news format or news in the form of propaganda. This inevitably invites a response from those of the other persuasions (I have often indulged in the mud slinging!)
Comment should be separated from facts, news from opinions. Opinion and discussion/argument can happen after the initial post.
The opinion news that is currently often presented undermines the credibility of the facts that are presented - if indeed they are facts in the first place.
If you're suggesting that it's possible to present the "pure facts" unbiased by any shade of personal belief then I'd argue that that's wrong. I think it's more honest to make one's point of view clearly visible in the presentation of "facts" so that a skeptical viewer/reader is alerted to the bias and can probe a bit further.
I don't believe there's unbiased news anywhere. It's the line taken by papers like the Irish Times or The Guardian or whoever and it's just not credible. The agendas are just hidden under the disguise of "objective reporting".
I certainly don't want that false objectivity from Indymedia and I think it runs counter to the ideal of "radical, passionate and accurate", especially the passionate bit.
I also consider the accurate bit and the radical bit to be important.
Of coure there is no such thing as completely unbiased new, but a balance has to be struck. Indymedia news should be primarily about the choice of news topic, this should speak for itself. The intrepretation of this news should happen separately. There is a differece in saying "police stopped the march at Grafton st." than saying "scumbag pig bastards pawns of capitalism stopped the march". The latter is evidence of such an overriding agenda that the real facts presented in the article loose all credibility.