Re: [ox-en] Indymedia -- the journal of the revolution?
- From: Chris Croome <chris croome.net>
- Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 20:50:46 +0100
Hi
On Sat 23-Aug-2003 at 11:04:54AM [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED], Stefan Merten wrote:
Unfortunately I don't know Indymedia very much but from what I've
heard - which is very in line with what you are saying - I agree with
you. Indymedia for sure is close to the top in the list of interesting
projects transferring ideas from the Free Software world to other
fields. It's good you put that topic to the idea list for the next
conference.
Cheers :-)
However, there seems to be some criticism from proprietary journalists
in the concept on Indymedia. Even from some which otherwise like ideas
of Free Software. Until now I was not able to learn what it is about
really but I would be interested in this criticism. Any ideas on this
anyone?
I don't know, but a proposed text for an Indymedia debate
at the Next Five Minutes conference caused a lot of debate
on the imc-europe list, this was the original text:
The Indymedia Debate
The extraordinary expansion of www.indymedia.org and
IMC's could lead one to conclude that the Indymedia
model represents the most successful example of tactical
media to date. And yet in Switzerland and in Belgium
Indymedia has been under attack for allowing
anti-Semitic propaganda on their site. Some European
indymedias therefore want to rid themselves of the open
publishing principles, but they face fierce opposition
from the U.S. In what sense does this transatlantic rift
between activist communities reflect the transatlantic
rift on a governmental level? And why do indymedias have
to be organized at a national level anyway? The inherent
problems of any open system are causing great tensions
within the indymedia network and it is clear that the
indymedia concept is in urgent need of public
reflection. So What is the tension between the drive
towards becoming a professional news medium and the open
publishing principles? What are the merits of such a
centralized web portal? Why not spit up and create a
thousand new indymedia that no longer carry that name?
What are the good and bad sides of 'branding' in the
tactical media scene? And above all is not high time to
question the over-emphasis on live reporting of summits.
How can Indymedia and the IMC's move beyond summit
hopping tourism and reductive definition of politics as
a place where world politicians make decisions behind
close doors?
And this annoyed a lot of people because it has a lot of
things in it which are not true, see the discussion on
this list:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-europe/2003-August/thread.html
Which starts here:
I think, whoever wrote the n5m piece about indymedia,
hates indymedia, but has absolutely no clue whatsoever
what indymedia is. I cannot find 1 statement about
indymedia in it that is actually true. I think the one
with a desperate need for public reflection is the people
from n5m. If I'm going to visit the n5m, it's to deliver
exactly that.
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-europe/2003-August/001322.html
And after discuission on that list, on irc and through
many people editing the text on a wiki page this was the
new version of the text:
The Indymedia Debate 0.2
A global network of more than 100 open-publishing
news-websites run by volunteers using free libre open
source software, Indymedia represents a successful
example of tactical media. The scale of reporting and
global collaboration is flexible. Individual websites,
although "branded", are customised according to the
needs of local collectives. A part from websites,
Indymedia uses a wide range of old and new media from
photocopies to peer-to-peer video and radio streams.
However, the very diversity of indymedia and it's rapid
expansion leads to contradictions, conflicts, and
questions for debate. Is indymedia a model for the
further development of tactical media, or has it
reached its limits?
Technology - the answer to all questions?
Although imcs exist on all continents, the largest
number is located in Europe and the US. Despite
cultural differences, imcs manage to collaborate as a
network by tactically using IT-tools. However, the
availability of geographically independent
communication tools does not lead to the dissolution of
national boundaries. Most European imcs organise on a
national level, although thematic (imc biotech, imc
climate) and regional (Euskal Herria) sites are being
set up. Imcs in Europe and the US have been on
oppposite sides of internal conflicts - does this
reflect the transatlantic rift between the US and
European governments? Is indymedia a model for a world
without national boundaries - or does it perpetuate
these boundaries?
News from the activist ghetto?
Besides day-to-day local reporting, indymedia
symbolically multiplies summit protests by
collaborative live reports. But have the anti-summit
protests reached their peak? Do they reflect a
reductive definition of politics as a place where world
politicians make decisions behind close doors? Should
Indymedia use its powerful role in the movement to push
a wider understanding of politics?
Open Publishing - at what costs?
Imcs are often critized for their approach to open
publishing. Advocates of a radical free speech approach
are worried about "censorship", while a Swiss group
complained about anti-semitic postings in the "trash"
of imc-ch. Imcs have come up with a number of open
publishing models. None of them satisfies both ends of
the range. Any restriction of open publishing
compromises the claim to radical free speech, while
many imc volunteers are not prepared to tolerate racist
postings. Is the legal and political price for open
publishing too high?
Or is open publishing an integral part of the global
"commons of content" (Wikipedia, Creative Commons),
where the free software mode of production is applied
to content production? Oekonux even considers this
practice as a seed for a different economy alltogether.
The Brand moves on - DIY Ideology Versus
Professionalisation
Indymedia is a successful brand - recognisable,
adaptable, easy to franchise. Has the brand grown to a
point where it restricts political, aesthetic and
tactical creativity? Is it loosing its empowering
DIY-character, is indymedia on the way towards a
professional organisation, with project managers and
fundraisers? Is it time to radically decentralise, move
on to smaller, autonomous projects beyond the
limitations of a vast network?
The last section (about brands) was left in because the
N5M people had this idea in their original text, not
because any Indymedia people agree with it.
A HTML version of the above text, complete with link to
Oekonux and the GPL Society interview can be found here:
http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/NextFiveMinutes
And the conference web site is here:
http://www.n5m.org/n5m4/
It should be an interesting discussion :-)
Chris
--
http://chris.croome.net/
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/