Where has all the freedom gone?

by Aidan Wed Jul 31, 2002 01:30 aidanobrien at hushmail dot com

You made some excellent points thank you. And the debate did descend into a shouting match.

The idea of grouping six posts or even posts into one single post with the articles as links is an interesting one, and one that hadn't occured to us. We're revamping our editorial guidelines in anticaption of the new software we're testing, so we can look into this.

MG you're not an Indymedia editor, but your levelhead and pratical solution to some of the problems facing open publishing could be very valuable. Would you consider joining the mailing lists, and making some contributions?

Warm regards and a pleasant and productive way to finish a frustrating thread.

by MG Tue Jul 30, 2002 11:49

The articles which sparked this rather puerile debate were copied in full from An Phoblacht. Each one of them was posted separately (and more than once). They are also quite long.

Why can't the republican propagandists just follow the guidelines related to this site and post a link. For example, the global observer posts one story with a link to its newsletter, where there are several articles posted in full. The observer gives a brief summary of the articles available on its website and gives IMC users the option of using the link.

An Phoblacht, on the other hand, tries to ram its blatantly one-sided stories down everybody's throat by spamming this website. There's a lot more news worth writing and reading about than a few ignorant thugs fighting over territory in Belfast and Aidan, in my view, was right to delete the offending articles. However, he should have posted a notification that this had been done and a link to the An Phoblacht website (http://www.irlnet.com/aprn/index.html).

Also, Pat C, if you attached libellous and/or racist comments to McMean's stories, then Aidan was also right to delete them. Do you really think that Indymedia should have to defend itself in court, at huge cost, against Ireland's draconian libel laws or anti-incitement laws just because you want to spout your own personal beliefs with impunity?

PS: I am not an Indymedia editor...

by patc Mon Jul 29, 2002 09:33

nazis would thru their actions permanently deny free speech to everyone else.

hitler when asked in the late 30's as to whether his victory had been inevitable, said no. he stated that if the nazis had been physically opposed in the streets & prevented from ruling them then thye would have been smashed.

instead they were allowed to cruise to power. hitler then united his opponents in the death camps.

yeah, the mono gig was great. look forward to an afa stall next to the imc one.

by Aunty Party Sat Jul 27, 2002 00:43

"people have different opinions. respect that fact."

Aren't the AFA the kind of people who will use force to prevent Nazis from meeting? And demand "no free speech for nazis?"

Isn't Nazism a different opinion? Why can't you respect that fact?

Just a thought......

by be japers - the Boys Fri Jul 26, 2002 19:42

peace to AFA and IMC! Both do excellent work.

Zionism = racism, and Indymedia have a policy on removing racist posts, I hope.

The IMC is not a dictaorship, the collective even have a few baby eating Leninists and scurrilous Reformists on board, last time I looked.

The newswire will always be abused by Zionists, nutbags and the usual cat fighting bitching that passes for a movement!

The gig was cool, and it was good to see that a lot of groups can get together in the real world!!!

by pat c Fri Jul 26, 2002 17:34

no aidan.

you continue to pontificate your views. and by your own words if someone disagrees with you then they are thick.

people have different opinions. respect that fact.

by Aidan Fri Jul 26, 2002 17:28

See you've been here for the last week critizing and i've been talking to you.

You've just disproved yourself.

by pat c Fri Jul 26, 2002 17:23

you are the one who is twisting yourself in knots.

you have stated on numerous occasions that only those involved in imc have a real right to criticise it.

it is obvious from your inability to accept criticism - your minor position has gone to your head.

you also seem to think your opinions are laws of nature.

grow up.

by Aidan Fri Jul 26, 2002 17:11

"to say that people don't have a right to criticse unless they join the editorial group is ridiclious."

You're contradicting yourself, you said that three posts ago. I never said that either.

And you're ignoring what I'm saying I've answered what you've said and I'm getting very tired repeating myself.

You're the one who's making accusations, I suggest you bring forward posts to support your weary claims, to wit theres a bias. Prove this. And I didn't "have a go" with Black Pope, I had a serious discussion which we've now taken off the newswire.

Criticism is not whinging but what you're doing is, not listening, and making nonsense complaints.

I don't take my position too seriously, I get frustrated when I'm trying to speak to someone who's not listening.

by pat c Fri Jul 26, 2002 16:45

aidan

i never claimed that you had to be a member of the editorial collective to point out objectionable articles. you really must be getting desperate if you have to resort to lies.

my swp analogy still stands i never suggested that you didn't allow criticism of the swp.

what i said was that your attitude of no one had a right to criticise the editorial ctte unless they were a member is as logical as saying that no one had a right to do critical articles on the swp unless they were a swp member.

you obviously have no conception of what democracy is about. criticism is not whinging.

i find it strange that you were able to hunt down my comment & have a go at blackpope yet you seem unable to find any objectionable pro-zionist or insulting comments (including some of your own) on this site.

you take yourself & your position far too seriously.

if this how you act when you are merely a member of an editorial collective then i shudder to think how you would behave if you ever attained a position of real power.

relax & try to mature.

by Aidan Fri Jul 26, 2002 16:18

I'm getting irrate because I've answered everything you've said over and over again.

When exactly did I say you had to be a member of the editorial commitee to point flaws out on the site. Where? Tell me because I didn't. We do allow criticism, see it's here! I've kept plugging the editorial list because it's forum of debate and discussion of the editorial policy and editorial decisions. If you're so concerned jump on board. It's the best place for that discussion.

The SWP analogy is flawed because (And I can't believe I have to say this again) Criticism on the site is allowed. see it's here. However this is a newswire idealy a place for news, not this, if you want to see a change in IMC come aboard and help change it.

You make this editorial committee out to be some shadowy elite. It's not it's an open low volume mailing list, which anyone can join. Anyone can be critically of IMC Irelands editorial policy and if they have issue with it, then take the time join Indymedia and work to change it. It's a democratic media and you're free to join.

You've whinged on for days now about how unfair Indymedia editorial policy is, we've pointed out that we don't think it is, argued with you publically and invited you to particapte. And yet you're still making the same moans.

Essentially Pat my problem with you is you've come out and said

"it is quite obvious that selective censorship takes place on this site"

Can you show us this? Can you give us an example?

Aside from your ludricous death to Zionists comment.

Pat I'm tired and bored of this. You've come out with accusations haven't backed them up, haven't listened to the arguments presented to you, and are still making the same complaints.

Change the record.

Blisset. Yes thats been done. But it's fairly obvious when it happens, because you'll get a dirth of articles put up in say a half hour period, all with a minute or so gap. Common sense and intelligence is the ruling factor in editorial decisions like that one.

Mags thank you for making intelligent points in the middle of this.

For starts the small amount of northern coverage stems from as far as I know the majority of Posters to this site being in the south. I don't feel I should write on a subject from the safety of my armchair a few hundred miles away. I've just e-mailed a group called the belfast media collective and asked them to do up a few reports on the situation there.

As for the filtering of subjects, our team of trained chimps (I mean techs) are working on solving that, adding a search function, media uploads, expanded photo uploads, and solving world hunger. We're running tests on the new software now.

by Mags Fri Jul 26, 2002 14:28

Yes, people are obviously at cross purposes about what indymedia is for. Some posters seem to think it is a forum for slagging off groups they don't like. Others want to post news articles from the mainstream media, etc. (I think this is valid at times). More just post notices on what their group/campaign is doing.

According to the notice I see at the bottom here it is a collective of media organisations and journalists.
I think one of the main problems is that activsts do not see themselves as journalists and are unlikely to write their own articles about anything. Many people also have time limitations, etc. For example I posted an article yesterday from the Indo about the 'secret summit' and Joe Higgins having got information about the security costs, etc. Some one mailed to say I should not have posted it. Now I thought it was of interest and my options woud be
a) not post it,
b) plagarise it and submit it as my own.
Or perhaps someone from the SP to put in a similar article (which people would likely dismiss as SP propaganda). But in all cases I think the article itself was as good as anything someone else would write.
Maybe the problems could be sorted a bit by different sections to the newswire reflecting different broad issues and causes, but I could see problems there too.

by pat c Fri Jul 26, 2002 14:20

Aidan

you really should calm down. editing this site can't be good for your blood pressure.

you haven't countered any of my points; in particular you haven't said why the swp analogy is a flawed one.

you seem to think people are thick if they disagree with you. just because you state an opinion doesn't mean you are right.

i would be frightened if someone like you ever got any real power.

by Aidan Fri Jul 26, 2002 14:12

feel free to post our conversation I stand over everything I said to you.

Pat are you just thick or trying to look for a fight?

"if this site is to be seen as truly democratic then imc editors must allow public criticism of their actions."

Pat what THE HELL IS THIS!!!!!!!!

I've said this to you the last two debates (one you started and scurred away from, and another you got involved in and then scurred away). There is public debate, and there is also a forum for people who have issues with the editorial policy of this site. You seem to have issue with this so we've repeatadly invited you to get involved and you repeatadly gone off in a huff

Whats this about abusive comments? We're volunteers looking at the site in our spare time, if we've missed something point it out to us!!!

Thats the second time you've made that eronous SWP analogy. Thats flawed and idiotic, because we've engaged in debate three times in the past week, and essentially I've had to defend againist you making the same argument over and over again.

As for the editorial guidelines. Blisset I sent a mail to the editorial list about it.

by Daithi - 1 of Evil Indymedia Fri Jul 26, 2002 14:06

The articles posted by "McMean" are clearly from newspapers or other newswires, it's obvious from the language. It was myself who originally suggested that they be removed.

As I stated in a previous post, one of the central founding principles of Indymedia is allowing under-represented stories and media producers to come to the front.

The point made by Mags about the importance of the story is good - however, it's wholly at odds with the idea of a fair editorial policy to judge whether or not a set of rapid-fire, cut and paste stories should stay or go based upon the content. One person might see a story as crucial while another (yes, you are allowed be an Indymedia Unionist if you like) might not place such value on the stories. To try and bring a value judgement into an editorial matter is wrong.

Everything is flexible. If there's a story happening hour by hour then I'm sure that whoever's looking after editorial on that day will use their eyes to cop on to what's happening. The articles at issue here were not - they are an abuse of the newswire. An Indymedia site is not a bully pulpit, home to the stories that are *shouted the loudest*. The idea of a Northern digest is good, but would be better with a little analysis or comment.

I feel that sometimes there's an attitude that Indymedia should be a clearinghouse or news source for activists and campaigners. While this is one of the main uses of Indymedia, in my opinion the innovative feature of the IMC idea is a new approach to editing, to production, to distribution and to the actual craft of news-gathering. What Indymedia is most certainly not is a community bulletin board, where a few people can gather, post the stories that they like from the Irish Times or whatever, and write "news stories" like "why do you hate the SWP" (and no other content;I think a criticism or defence of any party is wonderful, but just a line as a talking point is NOT repeat NOT repeat NOT a news item).

by pat c Fri Jul 26, 2002 13:51

it is quite obvious that selective censorship takes place on this site.also i notice the rules about abusive comments don't seem to apply if they are directed against certain people

aidan is also incapable of accepting any criticism. the way he carries on he seems to think hes editor of the irish times. he has also sent me extremely abusive emails, quite a juvenile chappie (if he denies this then i'll publish our correspondence in full). so, aidan remember even the bourgeois media allow public criticism of editorial decisions.

if this site is to be seen as truly democratic then imc editors must allow public criticism of their actions.

to say that people don't have a right to criticse unless they join the editorial group is ridiclious.

going on this sort of logic then imc should not publish articles & comments critical of the swp unless they were written by swp members.

by blisset Fri Jul 26, 2002 13:19

What if something important is happening and news is coming out hour by hour aidan? Please refer to where this is mentioned in editorial guidelines. I have not seen these articles anywhere else on web - so they are not necess cross posted

by Mags Fri Jul 26, 2002 12:21

I dont' think this is entirely fair though. I can't speak for the motives of the posters that are mentioned because I don't know them. However it should be borne in mind that many people have only limited access to the internet and they may be posting this stuff from an internet cafe or some such place and have to do it quickly. There isn't much point posting about an incident several days later, then it is not news.

Regarding the North there have been loads of incidents in the past week that people should know about, but don't. The fact that Loyalists spent a night LITERALLY 'hunting taigs' and managed to kill one person (Gerard Lawlor), for example. In fact there were five other drive by shooting attacks that night in the space of a few hours. This was clearly orchestrated and it does not take a genius to work out why and by who.

However I just find there is a lack of interest on this site about what is going on in the North. If it were reports about right wing death squads in some other country the interest would be greater.

by Aidan Fri Jul 26, 2002 00:51

Those articles where hidden because;

Mc Mean posted over 6 posts to the newswire in the space of 15 minutes. These where clearly cut and pastes from other sources.

Over the course of Indymedia Irelands existance, we've had several attempts by individuals trying to clog the newswire with articles, for example dozens of articles on palestine in the space of a few minutes, it's an abuse of Indymedia's open forum policy.

Therefore we've started a policy of removing several articles from the newswire if they've been posted by the same person in a short period of time. Period. It doesn't matter who's doing the posting or the idealogy, we want to discourage this behaviour because it can lead to an abuse of the newswire, and the drowning out of any other viewpoint aside from the author.

Over the course of Indymedia Irelands existance we've put up with vast quanties of weird Finnish conspiracys, reports on the north that have been nothing short of libelous, (accusing named individuals in the north of being child abusers without proof) and stuff like this. It's unfair to discriminate, and decide so it is easier for Indymedia Ireland to just enforce a blanket ban on individuals posting too many articles at the same time to the newswire.

If Mc Mean wants to dicuss this he can mail Indymedia Ireland otherwise he can post the articles over a period of time, so that Indymedia Ireland isn't bombarded with several articles on the same topic

Aidan
-Awaiting the abuse-