[IMC-US] Re: [Imc-us-editorial] relationships, ego, pride, and features

[Tribal Scribal]

This should be high on the agenda for any u.s. imc caucus that develops at 
the media reform gig in st. louis. Unfortunately i won't be among you due to 
financial constraints (even if i HAD submitted the scholarship form on 
time!). In any case, bht has obviously brought up an important area of 
concern.

Having said that, i'm not sure "affinity group" IS the right term for what 
we do here, at least in terms of editing. In my mind we are a team, but not 
really an AG. As i think bht has indicated, an affinity group requires more 
f2f interchange, even a relatively small geographical commonality.

As for process, frankly i was always somewhat satisfied w/the process at 
global, but there were, imo, strong feelings here among us that we shouldn't 
go that route so i didn't make any noise about it. As you may know, i'm very 
much a content-oriented kind of news guy, that's where most of my time & 
energy go, so i don't find much left over for process or style sheets or 
whatever. Also, by the time i drag my sorry ass off the job and into the 
front of this monitor i usually only have enough energy left to dedicate to 
content ;)

Anyway, thanks to bht and lotus for this dialogue. I hope it helps to 
tighten up our....team?  :)

d.o.

***************************************
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as 
necessary in the political world as storms in the physical world."

- Thomas Jefferson
***************************************
more rebellion here:
http://concertobi.blogspot.com/

***************************************



>From: lotus <lotus at riseup.net>
>Reply-To: "Working Group for IMC-US." <imc-us at lists.ucimc.org>
>To: imc-us-editorial at lists.ucimc.org,Working Group for IMC-US. 
><imc-us at lists.ucimc.org>
>Subject: [IMC-US] Re: [Imc-us-editorial] relationships, ego, pride,and 
>features
>Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 09:30:41 -0700
>
>On Apr 4, 2005, at 9:08 AM, bht wrote:
>
>>not having a clear vision or idea for indymedia.us creates a big problem.  
>>i have been thinking about it alot and i dont really want to.  but i have 
>>and such is life.
>
>You raise a number of important points here bht.
>
>In its simplest form, we need a new mission statement, or a set of goals 
>that we at least all agree with. The current one: 
>http://indymedia.us/en/static/mission.shtml only seems to contain one 
>sentence about the mission of us indy:
>
>"Culling content from over 50 IMCs in the United States, www.indymedia.us 
>is a critical tool for making local issues relevant to both a national and 
>global audience and vice versa."
>
>>as i understand an affinity group, it is a group of folks that feel 
>>comfortable with working together and can do so well.  the affinity groups 
>>has a common vision and a general agreement on tactics.  the affinity 
>>group is tight because of these common points.
>
>Should we talk more about tactics? Doesn't it take time to become 
>comfortable with people?
>
>>that is kind of what idy.us is like right now.  it is called an affinity 
>>group because we all consider ourselves in some way shape or form part of 
>>the indymedia network or part of indymedia.  however, because indymedia 
>>has no clear common vision, so we have no clear common vision.  our 
>>affinity is based on a word that is interpreted in many different ways, it 
>>is based on a ghost.
>
>surely we need a clearer set of goals.
>
>>now, here i am.  and i am frustrated becasue i see this project and this 
>>inadequate means of communication (email, irc, etc) and there are good 
>>people putting out energy into this project and alot of people leeching on 
>>and just trying to get on in there...which (and i have alot of passion in 
>>my person this very moment) in some sort of way reminds me that i was 
>>talking about something else.
>
>Can you be more specific about what you consider leeching on?
>
>>i think it is important to define to editorial roles of indy.us.  many imc 
>>collectives exist with editorial boards that compile and write features 
>>for their local sites and they think the features are great and they put 
>>alot of time into them and they they they.  things become owned, it 
>>becomes their feature and they want to see that get good comments, becuase 
>>that feels good.  so they want it to be on their site and then they want 
>>to promote it on indy.us. and on and on.
>
>Personally, I think that when a textual description of an important event 
>doesn't exist, its important for an editorial collective to come up with 
>one. Especially if indymedia volunteers have spent a lot of time working on 
>photos and video.
>
>Also, an imc volunteer has a different vantage point, especially with 
>larger events, to look at many events and provide a summary or a broader 
>understanding. I feel that this is an important role for indymedia us to 
>play.
>
>As I've said, my goal when working with indymedia is to create links and 
>networks between people and actions in order to create stronger, bigger 
>movements. More specifically, I'd say anti-capitalist movements. That being 
>said, my goal with indymedia us is to be able to look at lots of actions 
>happening around the country and tie them together to allow those people to 
>see themselves as part of a larger movement so that they can be more 
>informed and more motivated. On the other hand, i would hope that global 
>indy could do a similar thing globally, providing global context, links and 
>networks.
>
>But to do this, people in indymedia.us would actually have to do the work 
>of compiling links from various sources, looking at different events around 
>the country and providing context, probably by doing some writing. I don't 
>this is in opposition to the goal of subverting the media hierarchy by 
>encouraging people to be their own media, but in harmony with, adding to 
>it. Also, people are free to comment on the stories to say that the 
>features are crap or are great.
>
>>i am not singling out anyone here, but my thought processes brought it to 
>>this that eventually pride and ego would be major players in the site with 
>>no vision or goals or guidelines.  because everyone has a different agenda 
>>and may not even know that other folsk dont necessarily agree with them.  
>>i think that leads to folks having hard feelings and feeling isolated.  
>>especially in the case with features, becuase if someone writes a feature 
>>and for whatever reason someone else doesnt want it to be featured, is it 
>>possible that personal emotion and hurt because of that could creep into 
>>things?
>
>Sure it is. Hopefully with open discussion we can avoid that. I think that 
>phone (or better, in person) conversations really help to avoid the 
>misunderstandings that often come out of email. Maybe we should do more of 
>that, using some free voip technology.
>
>>at portland imc the features are culled from the newsiwre volunteers add 
>>linkks to stories, maybe an image, thats it.  pdx imc volunteers do not 
>>write the features, although since it is open publishing volunteers may 
>>also write articles.  there is a bit of a buffer between the volunteers 
>>and the writers.  the allows for an aura of selflessness that contributes 
>>alot to the health of the site and the speed of the feature wire and 
>>adding it all up the popularity of it.
>
>But portland is a local site with a different function from a national or 
>global site.
>
>>i am hard up to give out admin accounts, because lack of process allows 
>>whoever wants to do something for as much as they want to do that, and 
>>that can shape the (actually that HAS shaped) what the site is.  and we 
>>have never talked about it.  we have never asked each other if we feel 
>>comfortable with the way the site is moving or where we want it to move.
>>...
>>i dont know if that makes sense or not, i am typing and thinking so 
>>furiously.  okay.  i am just going to stop.  i think that i have made my 
>>intentions clear enough.  i want to talk about vision.  i want to really 
>>know what people want to do and what this site is what role it plays and 
>>where it fits in.  that knowledge is paramount to my involvement with this 
>>project as it is currently just sucking up too much of my time.
>
>so lets talk about it. thanks for getting the conversation going!
>
>_______________________________________________
>IMC-US mailing list
>IMC-US at lists.ucimc.org
>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us