The anarchists are coming

by hs - sp Fri Nov 14, 2003 16:58

your daughters!

by Mise Eire Fri Nov 14, 2003 22:04

Some of those anarchists ARE your daughters

by Theloneous M. Humdinger Sat Nov 15, 2003 14:01

I made a comment on this piece yesterday. The comment I made was reactionary; I said, "let them come. We'll bash their brains in, 'cause they ain't got nothing in them". Some pious editor removed it. If this partial quote was levelled against a far right activist who had made a statement on indymedia about the prevalence of Fascists in society and how they had been demonised in the media I believe it would have been met with cheer and support.

The point I wish to make, and it is a point I have made before, is that indymedia editorial policy is far from being fair. There exists a clear left wing, even anarchist, slant to all there dealings with the public at large.

This quote is take from a comment made by one of your leading contributors;

"I think that the reason why the left is over-represented on indymedia is that people with a more right wing point of view are massively over-represented in the mainstream media. If you can have your point of view distributed to 100's of thousands of people every day, in a format where your misrepresentations and distortions are not subject to any meaningful criticism, then why on earth would you bother coming to indymedia where you might reach a few thousand, but also be subjected to a highly critical process of peer-review which might cause your article to backfire on you?"

I contend that the point made about the lack of a variety of viewpoints is not because of representation in the main stream media it is rather censorship of the crudest kind.

I realise that I will be told that I am propagating hate, however every day I see hate levelled at the elected representatives of Ireland and the business men who 'run our world' (more crude economic reductionism). Is it justifiable to allow one sort of hate and to ban me from hating anarchists and expressing in no subtle terms what I would do if they were to come.

The anarchists who control this site like to talk about power, a force which they barely understand, they say that power is devolved to the users of indymedia. My experience of power is very different, you can have as many editorial policies as you like but a firm grip is held by those already in control. A cult of anarchists.

My original comment was meant as a tongue in cheek challenge to a savage call to arms. Using the words of a popular anti-fascist dancehall reggae song to throw down the gantlet to those I once believed agreed with the principle of free expression.

by Precision Man Sat Nov 15, 2003 16:55

'Theloneous M. Humdinger', I'm not sure whether to take you seriously or not. The reasons comments gets deleted here is because they are either abusive, promote racism, are 'cut & pasted' from elsewhere on the net, are 'cross-posted' to a number of different sites (and therefore regarded as 'spam'), promote holocaust denial, are defamatory, or the poster is impersonating someone else (which in itself can be defamatory).
Stories get taken down for the same reasons, or are sometimes demoted to 'comment' status and attached to related stories.
Stories and comments from people on the political 'right' are not deleted unless they fall under the reasons I have explained above.
As for "hate levelled at the elected representatives of Ireland and the business men who 'run our world'", I think it is reasonable to make strong criticism of the behaviour of the politicians and representatives of big business, I don't think that automatically means promoting hatred of these people. Also they themselves are not slow to abuse anyone they disagree with, and should be well used to a bit of vigorous criticism.
As for the Irish Indymedia site being "controlled" by anarchists, that is incorrect, although the principles which guide indymedia are more likely to be agreed with by anarchists than by right-wing people.

by Chekov Sun Nov 16, 2003 12:15

"I contend that the point made about the lack of a variety of viewpoints is not because of representation in the main stream media it is rather censorship of the crudest kind."

Your comment was deleted (not by me) as it transgressed at least a couple of editorial policies. 1) Threatening violence, 2) trolling - commenting on an article in a way that adds no information whatsoever, just attempts to annoy people.

Also, we do have an established procedure for dealing with; if you have a problem with editorial policy, you should take your complaint to the editorial list. Therefore, your second comment is also liable to be deleted at any time. I'd suggest that in this case the deletion is unequivocally in line with policy and unlikely to be overturned.

If you do think that the editorial collective is being selective in its application of policies, please point out the comments that you think are in breach of policy. There is a huge volume of traffic on the site at the moment and the editors do rely upon the vigilance of users to assist their task. We do have several users who take the trouble of highlighting comments that breach policy to the editors and their suggestions are normally acted upon. If you do want to see a more balanced approach, this is a very easy way to help bring it about. On the other hand, if you just don't like the site and want to moan about it, then there is nothing that we can put in place that will satisfy you.

Finally, using this example to demonstrate an editorial political bias is silly. If you actually want to comment on an article by providing some _content_ or even a reasoned argument, rather than just giving us a childish insult, the equivalent of 'anarchists smell', then you might have some complaint if it is deleted. But if you never try to contribute something worthwhile, you'll never even get to test your hypothesis.

by Theloneous M. Humdinger Sun Nov 16, 2003 14:29

I don't believe that either precision man (I don't know if I should take you seriously) or Chekov (is that your real name) really answer my point in any meaningful way. What I want to get across is that indymedia is not independent if your are of the right or even moderate left.

If you look back over the treads and find the one that related to a BNP members visit to a Trinity debate, the argument centred once again around freedom of expression. One contributor quoted something to the tune of 'smash them with terrible ferocity' and attributed the quote to Hitler. Now this in my view is a call to arms, a call to violence. Needless to say it was left untouched.

In my case I am willing to fight for what I believe in and I will fight the anarchists in the streets, but my views are not allowed. These views are actively censored.

'Chekov' accuses me of being childish, but in reducing my challenge to 'anarchists smell' he has fallen below the intellectual level of most children. What he should understand is that there are people who will challenge ill thought out theoretical positions backed up by pure populism on the ground. Never taking a hard decision that could alienate anybody.

When presented with pure propaganda and advertising (as the original piece was) of a minor faction of the 'left' which is run on a news website. People should respond in kind, I did and I was not allowed.

I contend that indymedia and it's editorial team, which includes 'Chekov', bring there own bias to the website and do not seek neutral ground in any way, shape, or form. For that reason I would not recommend looking for the truth on indymedia.

by T. M. Humdinger Sun Nov 16, 2003 14:36

"Therefore, your second comment is also liable to be deleted at any time."

By the by, just criticism in a just place (where my comment was removed from) results in thinly vieled threats from the'big boys'. Seems like indymedia isn't at all sure in it's role.

Well it certainly gave me the willies.

by Mayler Sun Nov 16, 2003 15:27

If you really want to understand the theoretical underpinnings of the indymedia 'idea' then read this:

http://www.cat.org.au/maffew/cat/openpub.html

If you do just want a moan then carry on- but don't expect a warm welcome...

by T. M. Humdinger Sun Nov 16, 2003 15:51

I looked at this piece hoping it would explain the editorial bias of indymedia.ie. It did not, however it is a very interesting piece about open software and it's application. Thank you for directing me to it.

I'm not looking for a warm response, I want to get to the hard issue of neutrality in the media and to ask a few questions about why my comment was removed.

by Chekov - 1 of Indymedia Ireland Sun Nov 16, 2003 16:11

Maybe read this again:

"it transgressed at least a couple of editorial policies. 1) Threatening violence, 2) trolling - commenting on an article in a way that adds no information whatsoever, just attempts to annoy people." This is very clear.

And as I say, if you have a problem with a specific comment that you believes is against policy and has not been deleted, the editorial team would be delighted for you to point it out to us for our consideration.

As for my 'threats', you are being silly. I took the time to explain editorial policy to you, an explanation which included the fact that since your second comment on this thread was about editorial policy, it was liable to be deleted in line with indymedia policy. I was kind enough to refrain from deleting it and to explain the situation to you, as I think there is a slim chance that you are genuine and not just looking for any excuse to moan about indymedia.

Your attitude is like someone who keeps picking up the ball during a game of soccer, and has a tantrum every time a free kick is awarded against him, calling the referee and other players 'fascists' for restricting his right to pick up the ball. Then when told that he will be sent off if he persists, he whines about 'threats'. Grow up.

by T. M. Humdinger Sun Nov 16, 2003 17:24

'Chekov' you must be a politician, you have that particular skill of ignoring the essence of an argument and promoting the tangents.

Let me look at one and two, 1) Threatening violence. I thought that I highlighted this point very well in the previous piece, but let me elaborate. Violence is threatened constantly on indymedia, towards fascists (see comment above), and towards the state and business interests. While this treat is not always explicit it is manifest in indymedia support or support expressed by contributors for particular causes and events that promote violence. However violence when threatened against 'anarchists' as I did is not allowed.

2) Trolling. You must recognise that this is like any other propaganda tool, it can be applied anywhere on the site and the criteria are vague. What constitutes "annoying people" does disagreeing annoy people? Does challenging annoy people? Look through the site look for information in treads, most of the time there is a posting that says 'we had a protest in Galway today' and the comments are generally vomit inducing slaps on the back such as 'great work', 'congrats on the fine protest' and so on. This in my view does not constitute new information of any substantial kind. Nor for that matter do the first two comments on the piece in question.

Maybe I was being a little flippant in accusing you of being threatening. You do not seem to recognise the fact that you bring to your editorial role a personal bias that shapes the content of indymedia if it infringes or your rules but you like it OK but if you dislike the content you find reason to be rid of it.

You have lost credibility by your lack of consistency and objectivity and it is a shame.

I'm not sure what soccer is, some imperialist invention I'm sure. I thought we were playing rugby, your analogy is probably the most bizarre thing I have heard in a long time. What role do you see yourself in? I would say you'd make a wonderful manager able to stop my free-expression by silencing me with an early substitution.

by barry Sun Nov 16, 2003 17:39

humdinger, perhaps you could expand further on this train of thought: "In my case I am willing to fight for what I believe in and I will fight the anarchists in the streets"

Perhaps you could explain what exactly (or even roughly) it is that you believe in?

As to your notions of censorship, well even McDowell would have have difficulty getting such an incitement to hatred published, even in the Herald. So I guess what you're getting here is FREEDOM OF SPEECH (even of hatespeech which will probably drive the no-platformists crazy).

SO, be happy (or whatever approximates for happiness with you, I dunno, go shopping or eat something that was alive recently or tell your kid brother that he's always going to be a failure unless he toughens up) and do share with us your beliefs. A feature on the sacrifices of our captains of industry, or the torrents of abuse at the parish pump would be most welcome and as long as you write some of it yourself it probably won't even be deleted(satire is usually considered in a different light to lying).

by Chekov Sun Nov 16, 2003 17:42 imc-ireland-editorial at lists dot indymedia dot org

I merely explained the editorial decision out of courtesy to you. You are persistently breaking IMC policy by bringing up editorial decisions on the newswire. If you don't want to abide by the rules you can:
a) get involved in the editorial collective and seek to change them.
b) go away.

Your choice.

by Farrell Cawley - GNAR Mon Nov 17, 2003 03:49

You're wasting your breath on this lot. Indymedia is run by a bunch of Trots. Their "editorial decisions" have nothing to do with a desire for truth and everything to do with a desire to push Party propaganda.

They're out to hijack every group that uses this site. Don't fall into their trap.

by David Mon Nov 17, 2003 12:18

Blatantly untrue, trolling, no basis in reality.

by edwatcher Tue Nov 18, 2003 09:58

Actually from monitoring the editorial list myself for quite a while it appears most the editors are anarchists/libertarians of one persuasion or another, which I think is healthy in an organisation such as indymedia.

That said this observation is only incidental in that I have never seen them push any particularly anarchist agenda (or any agenda). In fact the opposite is true in that I have often seen editors deleting stuff they might agree with, but breaks the guidelines, and making features out of stories they don't necessarily agree with.

In fact most of the moaners about indymedia from I can see are just people apparently too stupid to read the editorial guidelines before posting and then rather than lose face, when they do get all het up about the evil indymedia editors conspiracy against them. They don't seem to realize the amount of work editors put in deleting drivel and nonsense from the wire every day, nor the fact that they don't have an automatic right to use up what i'm sure are indymedia's expensive resources with oodles of their blather.