[IMC-US] What's the Matter with Indymedia?

[muna rva imc]

this response deals with both this discussion and one happening concurrently on
the us editorial list. i'm not cross-posting it as that always seems to
complicate things, but i'm not sure if that's the best way to go. i apologize
for overlapping somewhat, but i can't seperate my thoughts out on this.

also, this response doesn't actually even bring up the points i find most
compelling and worthy of discussion regarding the "what's wrong with
indymedia?" article. for right now, i'll just say that i think the question
more in need of answering is "what is indymedia?".

anyway...

> as for insults and such, this cities list is trying to not be confined 
> to preconceived notions.  it is trying to open up the idea that we are 
> not states and cities on a map defined by an overarching government.  
> more that we are a flowing and changing lifeforce that is intrinsically 
> linked with the rest of the life on this planet.  and with this, we are 
> trying to break the paradigm that we do live in a place that is defined 
> by state lines, oppresion, imperialism, white power, etc. 

do you see here the line of thought that could be carried over to justifying
indybay breaking chicago's stories?

with mass communications and the enormous mobility of north americans, there is
in a very real way no borders between san francisco and chicago anymore... and
with indymedia very frequently representing these trends in our collectives
(compromised of highly mobile, very plugged in people a lot of times not
actually hailing from the region their imc works in), the way publishing our
news works reflects this.

one potential way to deal with indybay's summaries is to have them more actively
working with the imcs that they're summarizing news for. for instance, if they
were to post their summary to the chicago site, with chicago editors adding
links and deciding whether or not to feature, then they would be more clearly
supporting that imc's work, rather than detracting from it.

in some good ways, i see significant similiarities between them writing as much
as they do, and folks like bht and bradley running phones and breaking
newswires for other cities during times of action. in my experience, summary
features are frequently very hard work on imcs, whose collectives are exhausted
providing coverage before and during actions.

> as one person commented eloquently on the announcement feature:  "To 
> create a new paradigm, it's essential that we THINK in that paradigm. 
> I'm not completely committed to the bioregional version of 
> governmental/economic/social organization, but if you want me to be, 
> you'd better keep presenting it to me rather than reinforcing the old 
> paradigm."

this is really something beautiful to consider. i'd like to ask you expand this
thought for a moment in a different direction. rather than thinking
traditionally in terms of geography, peoples and nations, what happens with
this thought if you think expansively in terms of migration and movement of
people and ideas. the enormous fluidity of culture, the inherent power of
individuals.

i'm not trying to imply some kind of conclusion here, but simply suggest an
exercise... one that perhaps at least illustrates the reasons for the
resistance portland runs into with this renaming. by doing so, it points out
the power and ultimately inaccuracy of categorizations and names, both of which
are truly terrifying things for most people.

ultimately, the strength of indymedia is the autonomy of its collectives. every
one, and every participant really, can decide what they want to use indymedia
for within a vast array of appropriate options. however, perhaps more analysis
of those options, and more clarity and support may help each other to make
decisions that better respect and support one another.

yours,
muna
rva imc