[IMC-US] Re: [New-imc] Re: Proposed New IMC -- IMC-US

[Sascha Meinrath]

Hi Susanna,

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 suzq at riseup.net wrote:

> It looks like my response to this didn't go through the first time, so I'm
> re-sending it.
> 
> I am _profoundly_ _disturbed_ by the idea of setting up an IMC-US.  The
> monstrous organizational tasks involved might be countered by making it a
> largely software driven "syndication site," but do we really want the
> voice of America on Indymedia to be developed by a computer program,
> rather than by human collectives?

The proposal clearly states that a collective of people would be involved
at every aspect of the editorial process.  The only computer program part
of the proposal is to automate the syndication of the newswire to draw
stories from participating IMCs.
 
> I understand the need to lower U.S. domination of Indymedia, but the only
> way I see an Indy-US as doing this would be to have Indy-US features
> replace features from local IMCs within the U.S. on the Indymedia.org
> features-syndication newswire, thereby reducing U.S. stories on the global
> newswire to about 1/46 of their original frequency.  This sounds like a
> good idea, but the question is, which national features would go to the
> newswire, and how would they be selected?  And would we have national
> liaisons with the global lists, rather than the current system of local
> U.S. IMCs having individual liaisons?

Features would be produced and selected by the Editorial Working Group of 
the IMC-US.  The IMC-US wouldn't usurp or replace any existing IMCs -- it 
would simply be a place for drawing connections between the stories 
published by the many US-based IMCs, a place to get information from 
across the United States, and a place where stories and issues that have 
national impact can be found.  The current system of local IMCs having 
liaisons to the global lists would in no way be impacted by the IMC-US.

> I'm not sure how many local IMCs within the U.S. want to be identified as
> part of a "national IMC."  As a member of the Philly IMC, I certainly
> would not want to be identified this way.  I've always thought of
> indymedia as being internationalist in tone, transcending national
> borders, deliberately focusing on the regional and local, grouping itself
> based on affinity and on geographic boundaries, rather than state lines. 
> I fear that an Indy-US would lose its regional autonomy and local focus,
> and that efforts to cover "National News" would wind up being dominated by
> news from Washington, DC, as news of changing governmental policies are
> defined as "national" news.

As mentioned in the proposal, each IMC can choose to opt out of the IMC-US 
syndication system.  No one in the project is interested in changing the 
current dynamics of local autonomy and focus of individual IMCs.  The goal 
of the IMC-US is simply to be a venue for highlighting stories from across 
the US and draw connections between the events and stories that appear on 
multiple US IMC's websites.  

> To create a "U.S. IMC" ignores the bonds of affinity that already exist
> between IMC activists in Seattle and British Colombia, say, or between
> mediactivists in California and in Mexico.  "America" is much bigger than
> the U.S., and I wouldn't like to see us confine ourselves to a
> self-definition based on borders.

The goal is not to create boundaries, but to build capacity and resources 
for people accessing Indymedia news.  I don't believe that an IMC-US would 
detrimentally effect the relationship between Seattle and British Colombia 
or California and Mexican media activists.  
 
> I would be much more comfortable attempting closer integration on a U.S. -
> regional level, via conferences and IRC chat, as is already being done
> among Northeast US IMCs, before attempting integration on a national
> scale.

This is already being done on an ad-hoc basis throughout the US.  Over the
past several years there have been multiple conferences, IRC chats,
gatherings, visits, and e-mail lists that are building communication and
information-dissemination among Indymedia participants.  An IMC-US has
been talked about all during this time and there is currently a critical
mass of interested people from across the US who think it's a good idea,
are full of energy to create the site, and have the experience and skills
to make it a sustainable endeavor.  In many ways, the process of setting
up an IMC-US has been going on for years, the IMC-US affinity group feels 
that it's time to move forward on its implementation.

In solidarity,

--Sascha Meinrath
Urbana-Champaign IMC