'Bloody Sunday' the movie

by Daithi Fri Sep 20, 2002 13:42 macsithd at tcd dot ie

I'm following this with interest - I was always of the opinion that the "radical" part of Indymedia was about the method of creating news.

I think that the really exciting bit about Indymedia is in the process. It's the most radical thing in news-gathering in quite a while - the whole notion of editing is turned on its head - and the newsgatherers are quite often the participants/protestors. For example, were there to be a rally where two factions of the left ended up fighting with each other, Indymedia would see first-hand accounts from both sides in a way that no other media could ever see.

The reason, IMHO, that Indymedia is left/"radical" politics-dominated is that it's plain to see that the media is conservative. In fact, I would argue that a private-enterprise model of media ownership can rarely lead to any other result (with honourable but uncommon exceptions). So the alternative media - student radio, zines, and Indymedia - has become a place where left activists can get their message heard without compromise.

Look at how we covered RTS. The Gardai didn't need to come and post here because they have their own press office and organised response method. But first of all we had reports, and then video and audio (not much...but that was my fault) and photo - all taken at ground level, up close, totally a radical way of getting the news (for Ireland). We had first-hand accounts from participants, and we had spirited opinion pieces and discussion pro- and anti-Gardai.

This, to me, was radical. Our processes, especially if/when we move to Dada, are so removed from the old-fashioned model of news, that they are unrecognisable.

That's why I'm involved in Indymedia.

by pat Thu Sep 19, 2002 16:06

i suggested you remove the entire sentence.

imc are making indymedia redundant.

by Ray Thu Sep 19, 2002 15:31

That rules out bored people posting stuff.

It doesn't say "Indymedia is a news site for people that we think are radical". I've checked the editorial guidelines, and no-where could I find a sentence reading "These guidelines are for conservatives only - radicals can post what they want."

I'd argue that an independent, unbiased news source is _in itself_ radical.

by pat Thu Sep 19, 2002 15:10

"Indymedia is a democratic media outlet for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth."

ray,

you should remove the above sentence based on what you have been writing.

pat

by Ray Thu Sep 19, 2002 14:54

"Indymedia is a collective of independent media organizations and hundreds of journalists offering grassroots, non-corporate coverage"

and the name of the site is

'independent media centre'

libertarian capitalists and fascists would no doubt describe themselves as 'radical' ('Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions'). Should they also be given privileged access?

by Ray Thu Sep 19, 2002 13:56

Exactly.
Which is why a double standard with one set of rules for 'radicals' and another set for everyone else is bound to end in disaster.
Its a level playing pitch. Everybody has the same access, everybody follows the same rules. No bias to any side.

INDEPENDENT media, exactly as it says on the tin.

by pat Thu Sep 19, 2002 13:43

"Indymedia is a democratic media outlet for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth."

as a radical outlet imc are redundant if they can't differentiate.

you are clutching at tactical straws now; individual examples can always be argued out.

imc seem to be losing the radical strategy as outlined in the sentence i've quoted.

by Ray Thu Sep 19, 2002 13:29

Are The Shining Path a radical organisation?

Are The Wolfe Tones radical singers?

Are FilmFour (distributors of Bread and Roses) a radical independent company?

'Redundant' means superfluous, or unnecessary. Where is the Irish open-access, independent, unbiased news source whose work indymedia is supposedly duplicating?

by pat Thu Sep 19, 2002 13:05

if imc can't differentiate between ff & radicals;

if imc can't differentiate between Shelley & Sugarbabes;

if imc can't differentiate between Loach & Liman;

if imc can't differentiate between Tesco & the Food Co-op

then imc is effectively redundant.

by Ray Thu Sep 19, 2002 11:38

is 'unbiased'.

We all agree that the corporate media is unbalanced, biased, slanted, however you want to put it.

You seem to want indymedia to be just as unbalanced, biased, slanted... just in the other direction.

I'd rather see an indymedia that presented _all_ of the news, and let the readers make up their own mind.

If you start down the road of describing indymedia as 'for radicals', the obvious problem is deciding _who_ is radical - and who is radical _enough_? Are Maoists radical? Stalinists? Trots? Anarchists? Primitivists? Environmentalists? Labourites? NGOs? Republicans? Nationalists? Objectivists?
Should we be biased in favour of all of these? If not, which ones?

by Ray Thu Sep 19, 2002 10:59

As far as I'm concerned, the purpose of indymedia is to provide people with an alternative news source. That's it.

Its not indymedia's job to tell people how to vote on Nice, who to vote for in elections, or even whether they should go to RTS.

Indymedia is here so that _you_ can tell people how to vote on Nice, what _you_ think of elections, why _you_ think people should go to RTS on Sunday.

Naturally, most of the people using indymedia will be activists, radicals, and lefties. They're people with something to say, who don't get to use the corporate media.

But that doesn't mean that they own indymedia, and that anything they say is fine, while anything 'the opposition' says should be banned.

I'm sure there'll be lots of articles next week talking about how great RTS was. But if someone wants to write an article opposing RTS, they should be free to use the newswire, same as anyone else. If a garda wants to write an article saying we're all bastards for breaking the law, that's fine too. Indymedia is an open forum, for anyone who wants to use it. People should not be banned because they're not radicals.*

Equally, when editorial guidelines are decided on, they should apply to everyone. You can't ban a rightwinger for using racist language, but accept it from a radical - something to remember when talking about Israel and Palestine. You can't ban Fianna Fail from posting their election manifesto, but say the Socialist Party is okay. And you can't ban advertising from one group but allow it from another.

The newswire is, or should be, open to _everyone_ who obeys the rules. If you don't like the political content of a post, then write a comment to that effect, don't try to ban it. Equally, the same rules must apply to _every_ post that appears on the newswire.

Ray

*That doesn't mean indymedia should be actively seeking out 'anti' voices, any more than it should be running around looking for people to write about Carrickmines or the anti-war campaign. Indymedia shouldn't be commissioning articles of any description. If someone wants to write an article, that's great. If they couldn't be bothered then we shouldn't bother chasing after them.

by pat c Thu Sep 19, 2002 10:21

i was under the impression that imc was a "radical" organisation dedicated to the "passionate telling of truth".

it really takes a strange "radical" mentality to be unable to diferentiate between indy movies radical books & those produced by capitalists.

i think some in imc are more intent on being redundant rather than radical. they really seem to be bothered by all these pesky articles people post.

so how is imc any different if you treat radicals & independents the same as capitalists & FF?

using this type of logic you should have balanced coverage of the rts event next sunday & also report from the garda point of view.

how about it commissioner o'brien?

by Bookworm Thu Sep 19, 2002 10:16

It seems to me a genuine radical Indymedia is not neutral between corporate interests and grassroots groups fighting the corporate agenda.

That after all is the whole purpose of the thing.
Chief Censor Aidan the now says Globalise Resistance or Fianna Fail are all the same to him and they're out.

A book by a socialist on Shelley celebrating his radicalism falls into the same category as an advert for the Sun and is cut therefore.

Can't help feeling that Chief Censor Aidan hasn't quite got the hang of this radical thing.

Can someobody explain it to him in words of one syllable or take his blue pencil and razor blade away?

by Aidan Thu Sep 19, 2002 02:06

Pat generally likes to feel that rules should be applied more stringently to mainstream and corporate than to left wing groups.

To wit an advertisement for a leftwing low budget film is okay, as is an advertisment for a book he thinks is interesting.

Ray argues that rules should be applied in a balanced manner no one should recieve more lenient treatment.

Essentially the first point of view is Indymedia should become a clique for left wing groups and puinish right wing groups.

There was a debate a few monthes back about Globalise Resistance recruiting on the newswire. Editorial members argued that allowing globalise resistance to advertise meant that if Ogra Fianna Faíl wanted to do likewise they should be allowed.

Essentially should the rules be applied evenly and to everyone?

I'm of the opinion yes they should. No one group or cause should recieve better treatment. Advertisments for books that we like or approve of shouldn't be let slide because that way leads to a bias, a real bias.

by pat Wed Sep 18, 2002 16:27

ray

the mail is from don mullan, he is pushing this independent film which tells the truth about what happened on bloody sunday. this is not a hollywood blockbuster. people who want the hollywood version of the north can see "patriot games".

i don't think there is much point in rehashing the arguments re shelley.

lets just agree to disagree on this.

pat

by Ray Wed Sep 18, 2002 16:22

This is not an advertisement?
Sure the guy feels strongly about the subject, but its not as if all proceeds go to charity, is it?

How is this different from 'go buy the book I wrote?'