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

[Joshua Breitbart]

In response to suzq at riseup.net
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-September/004336.html
and boud
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/imc-us/2003-September/000087.html

SUMMARY 
- regional and national organizing are compatible
- being in the US means we have certain obligations, so we need a network within
the US
- some postive thoughts on what stories might be featured on the US IMC site,
and how it might impact the global site


I agree with Boud that North American regional networks and a US IMC are
compatible projects. This is probably best evidenced by the fact that some of
the proposal's strongest backers are also leading organizers in their regions
(like NYC IMC in the northeast and Urbana-Champaign in the midwest). I think
this regional organizing is one of the things that has motivated people to want
to connect into a US IMC. I further agree with everyone (Boud, Suzq, and Sascha)
that Indymedia is an internationalist project, and I think we are promoting a US
IMC in that spirit. 

The US IMC is clearly intended as a tool for fulfilling the special obligations
we face as residents and citizens of the world's hyperpower. In this sense, I do
not think it is an argument against a US IMC to say the features will be
defensive. We need a stronger defense. 

I'd also like to address the effect the US IMC will have on the feature coverage
on Indymedia.org, something I've devoted a lot of my Indymedia energies to. No
proposal has been made to alter the syndication process, so there will be no
direct effect. Local IMC features will still be fed directly to the feature
wire. The way we imagine it lowering the US presence on the front page is by
creating a space for US-specific features (like the recent ones on Labor Day and
the FCC - two institutions known only to us) so they do not need to be broadcast
globally. However, the only thing that is really going to make the global page
more global is more participation from around the globe (which there has been
over the past 6 months or so). 

Rather than conceiving of the impact as negative (fewer US features on global),
I look at it as a positive space, where we can raise awareness of local events
and shared issues. When Alberta Spruill was killed by an NYPD stun grenade, that
story should have been told around the country. When Eye of the Storm was on
tour through the midwest. The Verizon negotiations. Ongoing blackout fallout.
And of course, extensive coverage of the upcoming national elections. Because
when I say we face obligations as residents of the world's hyperpower, I'm
talking about regime change. And what better tool for changing the US regime
than a US IMC?

I also agree with Sheri that new-imc may not be equipped for this process, but
thank you for hosting the discussion. 

Keep loving, keep fighting. I'll do my best to support all of you in your efforts. 

Josh






Quoting boud <boud1 at wp.pl>:

 hi sascha, susanna, everyone,
 
 #####
 SUMMARY - this is a SUGGESTION, it is NOT a block
 Is it practical for those people and local IMCs strongly motivated
 to syndicate info from USA IMCs into a bunch of 5-10 regional IMCs
 of which several deliberately cross the violence-based borders of the USA,
 fully including Canadian and Mexican IMCs right from the start?
 #####
 
   i guess one reason for preferring cross-border regions than national
 boundaries is that a national boundary encourages negative, defensive
 reports - defending against the crimes of State - while cross-border 
 regions are more likely to come up with positive, constructive 
 reports about alternative structures to those of violence-based States
 (where USA is a State).
 
 susanna: i guess part of the question is how much work you are willing
 to do to discuss your profound discomfort with others in Philly IMC 
 and to do the communication and organisation work to really construct
 a regional NENA (north-east north america) IMC syndication site.
 
 IMC Philly has (apparently) known about the IMC US proposal for at
 least two months, and if you as an IMC really feel you should block
 the proposal, then the most constructive way to do it would be to
 make a clearly consensed on decision within IMC Philly, and then
 bring it up on imc-process. However, it would be good to show that
 you're also willing to work on a reasonable counter-proposal - such
 as to create regional, cross-US-boundary, syndication sites.
 
 Both of these require time to communicate, consense - but these
 are required, by definition, for creating any sort of collective. 
 
 IMHO, the arguments in favour of syndication sites are very strong,
 whether or not they have an additional component of a people
 collective, but the arguments in favour of cross-border regions are
 also very strong. And the two are compatible, IMHO (even in in CE Europe
 we're still a long way from this).
 
 The NENA mailing list exists:
 http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-nena/
 
 hmm. It seems that lee at eds.org has already set up a test syndication site
 for NENA!!! :)))
 http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-nena/2003-July/000152.html
 
 So maybe in this sense alternatives to US IMC are *already* being tried...
 
 On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Sascha Meinrath wrote:
 
 > > 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.
 
 > On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 suzq at riseup.net wrote:
 
 > 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.  
 
 
 So why not:
 
 NENA - north east north america
 NWNA - north west north america   Seattle, British Columbia, ...
 SWNA - south west north america   California, ..., northern Mexico
 
 plus other regions?
 
 
 There's no need for sharp boundaries, especially in syndication, it can't
 hurt if some stories are syndicated "up" to a couple of different
 neighbouring
 regional sites.
 
 Why not use the US IMC mailing list to help people group into a small
 number of regions which deliberately violate State boundaries?
 
 IMHO this should not be that difficult. If local US IMCs as
 collectives are to really be involved, rather than just people acting
 as individuals, it seems to me that having NENA etc rather than US IMC
 would be more likely to be bottom-up grassroots and involve more
 people.
 
 IMHO, the people asking to create US IMC should at least *attempt* to
 organise and participate in regional, cross-border IMCs such as NENA
 before trying to create US IMC. If the cross-border IMCs fail, then US
 IMC could be a fallback position as a "better-than-nothing" regional
 IMC.  In fact, i think the main argument for a US IMC - for more
 efficient info access - is a "better-than-nothing" argument - NENA IMC
 and so on are not yet developed, so US IMC is better than no regional
 IMCs at all (in that part of the world).
 
 Someone gave the argument that accessing 30-40 IMCs each morning to
 select the most interesting USA articles is simply impractical. But
 accessing 5-10 regional IMCs, especially those closest to where you
 live, should surely be much easier. This would also encourage stronger
 cross-border info flow.
 
 Anyway, i just want to make it clear that *this* message is *not* a
 block of any sort, it's just an analysis by an individual who lives in
 a region which has been organising norther summer anti-border camps
 since summer 2001. 
 
 My earlier "block" was in the sense that US IMC is applying as "an IMC"
 to the new-imc working group, and simply has not provided most of the
 info requested in:
 http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/NewImcHowTo
 
 For example, there is no decision-making method. The argument that
 people have many indymedia skills is not the same as actually
 consensing on a general decision-making method and answering the
 principles of unity and membership criteria. And the fact that US IMC
 people didn't seem to autonomously know how to solve a simple
 technical problem (http://newimc.indymedia.org not working) suggests
 that they are not yet well organised as a collective...
 
 As i said above, IMHO a real block could only validly come from a
 decision by a functioning local IMC (not just an individual) in the N
 America region that has worked or is presently actively working on an
 alternative regional syndication site in the region - eg. NENA - and
 which presents this as a constructive counter-proposal.
 
 solidarity
 boud (new-imc and IMC PL volunteer)
 
 
 On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Sascha Meinrath wrote:
 
 > 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
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
 > New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
 > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc
 > 
 
 _______________________________________________
 IMC-US mailing list
 IMC-US at lists.cu.groogroo.com
 http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us