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

[Ana]

I agree with everyone that a us imc and smaller regional ones are  
compatible.

But they are not the same thing by any means. We are talking about two  
entirely different projects, each with their own merits, but they are  
not interchangeable. Having 5-10 regional IMCs would not lessen the  
need in my opinion for a us-based IMC.

Plus there is the not-so-small matter that having 5-10 regional sites  
means a lot more work on the part of many more people to not achieve  
the same media activist impact that one us-site would.

I have been involved in NENA since it started two years ago. My  
impression is that we are all too busy with our own local IMCs to  
create another IMC that for the most part would have material that is  
redundant to our own local sites, while not achieving the impact we all  
imagine with a us-imc. As it is, all the websites in the NE USA have  
articles and features about our region, including parts of eastern  
Canada, so I really dont see any need to create another website to  
repeat all that information.

The difference with a us-imc is that there are people all over the  
country who feel a real void in coverage of news in the US from a  
radical perspective, for good reason. There are issues that are so  
broad in scope that addressing them on a regional IMC feels  
insufficient.  Many emails to this list have given examples of the kind  
of news a us-imc would feature, so I wont go over that again. But I  
will reiterate that these issues tie an american public together,  
affecting all the regions of the US, not just one or two. And that is  
the point.  We are simply trying to create a webspace where those  
issues can be addressed in a manner easily accessible to the entire  
american public, where issues and movements can be connected from coast  
to coast.

There is a core group of 30 people from IMCs all over this country who  
see this need and are willing to work on this project. that is a good  
number of people to make it happen. I believe we have already laid out  
our decision-making processes. We have established four working groups  
to handle various aspects of the site and have said we will use the  
same process for features that www-features uses, perhaps even building  
and improving upon it. I believe we have also consensed on the  
principles of unity and filled out all the paperwork required by  
new-imc. If there is something we are missing, please point it out  
specifically.

I also want to clarify the syndication issue. I am hearing over and  
over again that syndication makes it irrelevent how you group areas  
together. I want to stress that this is not simply a syndication site.  
It will not look like oceania.indymedia. the point is not simply to  
repeat the millions of posts that come through imcs in the us everyday  
on five different websites that have regional distinctions. The point  
is rather to provide a space where a) features of local imcs in the us  
are syndicated on one newswire and b) highlight those stories that have  
national impact on a center column with *unified context*. That takes a  
lot of dedicated, human work. It not simply a technical matter. But  
personally I am looking forward to working with those interested all  
over the country to create that critical context and get the  
information out to a larger, non-choir american audience. Each day that  
goes by that we let Fox news or the New York Times do that for us, the  
more work we have to do to catch up.

To address concerns of nationalism, I think we can make a very clear  
statement regarding that on the us imc front page, possibly even having  
a prominent area of the page that deals specificlaly with  
cross-border/no-border issues. Immigration, deportation, natural  
resources, native americans, even issues of patriotism, etc certainly  
are issues that effect the US in an anti-US kind of way, and we should  
highlight those issues with a clear politik of counter-nationalism.

I have rambled on long enough. I want to get moving.
in peace and excitement,

Ana
NYC IMC liaison to the imc-us working group



On Saturday, September 6, 2003, at 05:44  AM, boud wrote:

> 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
>