[IMC-US] Notes from NCMR IMC caucus + intro

[Kat Aaron]

Hey everyone -

Just joining the list, so this email includes an intro + the notes
from the IMC caucus at the Media Reform Conference.

1. Intro:
I'm Kat Aaron, living in Brooklyn NYC - I'm part of the August Sound
Coalition, which is an outgrowth of the audio team at the NYC IMC; I
did a lot of work coordinating the radio component of our RNC coverage
(24 hr a day radio for the convention), and occasionally write about
financial justice issues for the Indypendent, our print publication. 
Besides my work with NYC IMC, I run an organization that does
financial justice organizing with youth groups in NYC, working around
prison issues, educational equity, environmental justice,
counter-recruiting, stuff like that (online at www.nedap.org/ryse, and
our financial justice news blog is at http://nedap.blogspot.com, if
people want to check any of that out).  I also work at WBAI, our
(fairly screwed up) Pacifica station.

And I was just at the Media Reform Conference and took the notes at
the IMC caucus, which are below.  I'm sure I missed some things, and I
didn't know everyone's names, but I think the notes reflect the
discussion in the room.  Where I didn't know people's names I put
their cities, and when I didn't know either I just noted that.

I will add that after this caucus Josh and I went to talk to Thenmohzi
Soundararajan from Third World Majority
(http://www.cultureisaweapon.org), a media justice group that
presented at the media justice panel (along with Media Tank, Video
Machete, and another group I can't remember) and discussed with her
the proposed tabling setup, people posting feedback, etc., and she was
really down with the idea.  She talked a bit about her huge
frustrations with the conference.  And we talked about the desire
stated by many people in the caucus to be in better communication with
the media justice folks in general, which she was also pretty
supportive of.  So I hope that happens, and not just about planning
for next year's NCMR conference (if any of us decide to go back), but
about collaboration and communication on a more regular basis outside
of the free press scene.

- Kat 

--------------------------------------------------------------
Notes from IMC caucus at NCMR – Saturday May 14 2005, the Lou

Facilitating: Jay from Philly + Sofia from Boston (taking turns watching stack)
Notes: Kat from NY (that's me)

Agenda (incomplete – didn't get down all the things thrown out but we
only really wound up talking about the conference things anyway)
-	invisibility of IMC at conference
-	global process
-	outreach
-	diversity in IMC

Conference discussion agenda:
1)	please say why the conference sucks and what you expected
2)	What our response will be

(15 mins for why it sucks – shooting for hour and a half total)

Ali – Indybay: IMC vs. free press has ideological differences, IMC is
facilitating oppressed communities and communication.  He expected
what we got at the conference.  Free press strategy is to communicate
to people in decision-making power in the US but IMC wants to subvert
that decision-making system.   Asks if our two models can work
together.  Maybe we (IMC) could have organized better before the
conference.  Feels like two models are completely separate.

Tish – Houston: Came expecting something difference from last time,
because of what happened last time.  In TX she does work on these
issues (?) and feels duped this year, she thought IMC and media
justice people would be more involved.  She was insulted by the
presentation at the "Independent Media Caucus" which was essentially
how can you amplify our message.  Also mentioned that as she
understood it a media lab had been proposed and denied by free press,
and that we had the media showcase instead.

(not sure of name) – People of color also feeling marginalized.  Very
big media issues on the horizon, like community wireless, new
bandwidth fights. People are talking more and more about IMC (not sure
if meant at conference or in general).  We should  ally with people of
color groups, women – give them the tools we have with which they can
make their own media rather than offering them a seat at our table.

Josh – NY: Wants to see stronger horizontal alliances between groups
that feel marginalized at this conference – not necessarily worth
worrying about our relationship with free press.

Chris – NY: We should communicate to those groups that we are here as
a resource to them.

Proposal articulated by Jay - Philly: Tentative goal seems to be to a)
communicate what IMC is to the conference, and b) communicate our
criticisms of the conference insofar as we decide that that's useful. 
We should 1) talk to the other groups marginalized by free press, and
2) organize an action where we get out our information about IMC, set
up a website with critiques of the conference.

Person from Tennessee IMC: There were practical problems like the fact
that they closed registration sent a huge message, that the facilities
are bad, that the conference is expensive!  Makes it inaccessible. 
People here are saying that they are marginalized, that they need
their voice to be heard, but what does that mean for us?  There should
be more people talking to each other rather than being talked at.  The
"independent media caucus" was bullshit, with Eric from Free Speech TV
(not sure if that's right?) ignoring people's feedback.

Sofia from Boston: propose that we shift from discussing what was
wrong with the conference to concrete proposals for action.

Mike – Michigan: Criticism he is hearing a lot in this room is that
IMC was not represented here but the deeper issue is the failure to
center the agenda of media justice.  Our response should not be about
promoting IMC but about promoting media justice.  If we make fliers
letting people know about IMC being marginalized at the conference (as
had been thrown out there but its not in my notes – was proposed by
person from AZ IMC), he would rather see IMC as an asterisk at the
bottom of the flier and the media justice issues front and center.  We
should be a tool to amplify their message.

(not sure who said this) – At the people of color caucus, people there
were saying that the media reform people (ie free press, I think) told
them that they want to share power, that was the message they heard,
but then they were having trouble actually sharing power or giving it
away – also assumes that they have the power in the first place!

Arun – NY: IMC can bring something specific to the table; no one is
talking about the elephant in the room, which is capitalism.  Much of
the discussion at the conference has been about resource control, but
without talking about capitalism.  We can learn from the right that
reform can be valuable (?) but we (IMC) don't support reform – we can
bring our anti-capitalist and anti-statist analysis to the discussion.

Dee Dee Halleck– We should introduce people to IMC more, set up a
table by registration with laptops and have people post, introduce
them to the open publishing system.  Show people where their local IMC
site is, that they can write their own news – they can write own news
and comments about the conference, maybe post their pictures.  Like a
small workshop, be creative and use our skills.

Jay – Philly: lets try to consolidate the comments.  

(Mike from Michigan took over notes for a minute)

(no named speaker) We are more sophisticated in our critique,
especially in our critique of "one-way media"; we understand that
media is not a commodity.

Jessica – AZ: we should make ¼ sheet fliers about how to publish via
IMC, give them out in the grand ballroom, and have computers set up
for people to post.

Next year: make our media center whether we are "allowed to" by free
press or not.

(Kat starts note-taking again)

BHT – Portland: Community-based media is key; free press skimmed over
local issues, like the citizen's review panel, CAPCR and the
Confluence (note from Kat: CAPCR is the local coalition against police
brutality demanding a citizen's panel, and the Confluence is the local
paper that among other things published an article on the free press-
CAPCR issue).  Maybe we should ask for space on the closing plenary,
and if not, maybe we should go guerilla style.

Someone else: If not direct action, like getting up on a table, at
least we could hold up signs about CAPCR and IMC during the closing
thing.

Someone from Boise with an off-topic question: Why was there an Idaho
IMC and it's not there any more (BHT said he would discuss it with
that person after the caucus).

Jay – Philly:  What about issuing a statement with other groups or
constituencies feeling marginalized at this conference?

Mike – Michigan: Do we feel comfortable going forward with an action
plan without consulting with other groups, like the media justice
people, the internationals?

Kat – NY: No. 

Alan – LA: (didn't get down what he said, just have that he said
something – sorry!)

Josh – NY: Do we know what was articulated in other caucuses, like the
people of color caucus or the internationals – do they have an action
plan?

(Non-IMC person speaking who came in – she had been at the people of
color caucus): Question: what IMC is asking for from free press?  If
they stop doing what they are doing it might be a problem for the
media movement – how do we make our work and their work more
collaborative?  (Question didn't really get discussed or answered)

Ali – Indybay: No, he doesn't feel comfortable about going forward
without consultation or having an Indymedia public masturbation
session – all the bags that were given out at the conference (the free
press bags, which all conference attendees got, not the Allied Media
Conference bags) have a flier from Champaign-Urbana IMC in them, so
people know at least a bit.  The bigger issue is what IMC is about –
social justice – we don't need to produce more paper.

Dru – (Montreal?): He would feel uncomfortable speaking for anyone
else or overriding anyone else's agenda or furthering their
marginalization.  He doesn't feel uncomfortable doing what was
proposed, which was highlighting IMC.  We could do that without
isolating other marginalized voices, and doing that table setup
tonight (Saturday night) is better than Sunday morning.

Person from Binghampton NY IMC – It's not a exercise of vanity to say
"look, this is here for you as a resource."  We could be using the
tools of IMC to be amplifying the other marginalized voices at the
conference.

Jay – Philly:  No one wants to marginalize anyone else.  We are
proposing to create a space for people to critique the conference by
posting to an IMC site, and put forward the marginalized ideas.  Maybe
there will also be some rah-rah posts, which is fine.  We propose to
create that space and seek out people who have criticisms.  Maybe as a
precursor to a potential declaration?

Dee Dee: What about having people post to the STL IMC site?

Brent – Austin:  There is already a feature on the STL site,
criticizing the conference, especially for ignoring local issues and
CAPCR.

(Thenmohzi from Third World Majority stopped in to the caucus to say
that if we wanted an ally on the closing plenary we should talk to
Sidney Levy from Media Alliance, because he is speaking on it.  He is
sitting in the Media Democracy showcase area, so someone should go
talk to him.  No one got up to go do that.)

Josh – NY: Also, someone should go sit at the IMC table in the
showcase area because there are a lot of people in there, many of whom
haven't heard about IMC, and we are all sitting in here talking and no
one is at our table.

Someone joked that this is the shoot ourselves in the foot
caucus/meeting.  Some people got up and went to the showcase room.

Jay – Philly: we should gather information from other caucuses, and
let people know that this resource is going to be there for democratic
feedback on the conference.  We should do it at the STL site, and use
that as a starting place to plan our future interactions with the
reform folks.

Arun – NY: we are not talking about diversity in IMC itself – what's
in our own faces – also someone should really go talk to Sidney Levy
(Dee Dee and Betsy from STL IMC went to go talk to him).

(More people are leaving now)

Kat – NY: Wait, did we agree that we are setting up the tables and
computers and having people post to the STL site?

Jay – Philly: Yes.  

(At this point it was about 7:00 and the tables needed to get set up
within about ½ hour, so most people dispersed to make that happen.  I
went to talk to Thenmohzi, with Josh from NY.  Some others stayed in
the caucus room to talk about other non-conference issues, like global
indy process and diversity within IMC.  My notes end there.  Over and
out.)