[IMC-US] personal reprtback forindy folks
abouttheNationalCOnference on Med
Tribal Scribal
valeoftheoaks at hotmail.com
Thu May 26 14:44:11 CDT 2005
While i agree w/some of what is said here, i have differences w/this:
>>i think we're approaching this in a very us-them strategy and it is based
>>on
reaction rather than proaction. it's why we don't know how to collaborate
very
well with allies, why we don't engage in strategic dialogue with people/orgs
who
might very well be huge supporters.<<
Putting aside for the moment the basic generalization that We (as in all of
us) are "approaching this in a very us-them strategy", i feel compelled to
point out that some of us have made numerous efforts in the past to
communicate with various media reform groups and associated high-profile
individuals in those groups to no avail. How can one (or a group)"engage in
strategic dialogue" when the other party does not respond?
There exists an elitism in some media reform groups, independent media
operations, and the u.s. left in general, that has built a firewall between
"famous" activists/personalities and those of us in the ranks who attempt to
dialogue or interact with them. Naturally there's going to ba a "reaction"
after you've bashed your head over-and-over again against a brick wall of
silence. Yes, one can come up with "proactive" responses to elitism (in its
many forms, not just neglect), but the underlying mentality that fostered
that neglect remains until it can be transformed, and the personal pain or
anger resulting from the elitism remains as well.
I'm of the opinion that until we can come up with answers and solutions to
elitism, even in our own ranks (i might add), efforts to truly address the
other issues we've been discussing here will always be hampered. This is not
to say that solutions can't and won't be reached, but that there is a sort
of low-level background radiation of ill feelings and resentment that will
continue to effect the work.
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: "sheri at speakeasy.org" <sheri at speakeasy.net>
>Reply-To: "Working Group for IMC-US." <imc-us at lists.ucimc.org>
>To: imc-us at lists.ucimc.org
>Subject: Re: [IMC-US] personal reprtback
>forindy folks abouttheNationalCOnference on Med
>Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 17:33:12 +0000
>
>hi,
>
>this is my personal rant.
>
>i really appreciate this comment from max on holding ourselves to the same
>standards we hold everyone else to.
>
>it is easy to critique others who we perceive to be the "enemy" (we can
>define this in many ways, from those who are capitalists to those who are
>reformers to those who don't think like we do -- which turns us into
>homogenists - monoculture of the mind). it is more difficult and
>challenging to reflect on our own behavior and to observe where we are not
>modeling (enough) the very values we claim we are for. i think we should
>look at our own behaviors (on lists and within collectives) for how much
>work we have to do to "get it right" before we go after others (like
>freepress, media reformers, etc.). it is easy to critique others and much
>more difficult to be the change we want to see in the world.
>
>however, one of the rasons why i love indymedia so much is because we
>really do seem, as a whole, committed to being that change. but we have
>our own blindspots. we have a fundamentalist streak which runs through us
>which makes us act as though we are so much better in all ways than anyone
>else. deconstructing some people's emails would make me believe this and
>the fundamentalism rampant on occasion is incredibly destructive to our
>work as a whole. there will always be spectrums of strategies and tactics
>and perspectives. we maybe even need that kind of diversity. the first
>step in being that change is to not play by the same rules we're governed
>by and i think we have integrated those so much into our psyches that our
>"fighting" the system is exactly what the system wants. it understands
>resistance like this. it expects us to "divide and conquer".....and we do
>it all the time.
>
>so instead of us going to the media reform conference with the knowledge
>that it is a conference about "reform" and that we of course have something
>to offer and we could have organized a helluvalot more before hand (that's
>a separate email that i probably won't write), we go in prepared to not
>like it. why don't all the media activists on the mediact list mention
>indymedia when they talk about alternative sources of information? why
>can't we take the criticism when it is levied against us? even if we stand
>our ground.
>
>where is the ability to dialogue and create a movement across differences?
>that is what this is about. it is not about fuck the corporate media -
>although that is a gratifying thing to say, but it doesn't bring people
>together or build a movement across the center or unify people from the
>media reform/democracy/justice/activist movements to find ways to work
>together.
>
>i think we're approaching this in a very us-them strategy and it is based
>on reaction rather than proaction. it's why we don't know how to
>collaborate very well with allies, why we don't engage in strategic
>dialogue with people/orgs who might very well be huge supporters.
>
>if we take bob mcchesney as an example - founder of free press, catalyst
>for this media reform conference, etc. - the epitome therefore of media
>reform - he has an incredible analysis of why the system is the way it is
>and how fucked up it is. i used to interview him on a regular basis
>(before he became so famous) back in the mid-90's on a radio station here
>in seattle. we'd always end with talking about what can people do - he'd
>always emphasize supporting independent media. so i think we need to find
>more room for how we can work WITH those who have different strategies and
>tactics than we do.
>
>this is my rant.
>
>i like max's comment because it is asking of ourselves to put the work on
>what are we doing that is not living up to our own values of how we want to
>see the world change. i believe greater mutualism is needed. diversity is
>needed (and not just in race and gender - but in perspective and
>strategies). the enemy of my enemy is my friend goes an arab
>proverb......what are the implications for this.
>
>we have a movement to build, we have media to make and stories to tell and
>to inspire others to engage in these very same acts and processes that we
>claim to be a huge leverage point for changing the world. i believe this
>wholeheartedly - we need to go beyond civilization in daniel quinn's words.
> as in creating new alternatives. this is our power. and the way we
>engage with those who fighting the existing system (for better or for
>worse) does not allow for how we are creating those alternatives to truly
>shine forth. i think this is a strategic error.
>
>i hope allied media conference will take up these issues and conversations
>and dialogues and i hope we will share what happens there with other spaces
>where we can keep the momentum going. because if anything this media
>reform conference stirred things up where they were getting stagnant and we
>weren't even talking about the most important things in a constructive way.
> we just were critiquing.
>
>it is not enough to slow the rate of destruction. we must increase the
>rate of creation. we must treat each other with more respect when we talk
>to each other. and when we work through issues and differences. these
>lists have never been truly productive spaces. many people have left
>indymedia lists over the years because of being attacked or flamed or what
>have you. i do not believe that that kind of behavior is living up to our
>values or principles of unity.
>
>mutual aid.
>transforming society.
>new cooperative models of communication and engagement
>inspiring action not just deconstruction.
>loving more.
>hating less.
>
>xo
>sheri
>
>
>and i of course agree with the critique about the corporate capitalist
>media -anyone who is committed to independent grassroots media has at least
>some of this analysis going on. if they don't, perhaps it's because they
>haven't really been educated into how the model works, they just get it by
>observing how it operates in society. it's fundamentally based on
>principles which don't serve life, people or the planet. it is designed
>specifically NOT to do this but to manufacture consent, create
>disempowerment and to numb people into apathetic consumers. we are at the
>other end of the spectrum with a motive to create media and stories and
>structures and process that serve life, people, communities, create
>alternatives that bypass corporate media, etc. i think back to when we
>were writing the mission statement for the imc in seattle - built on
>independent grassroots media work we had been doing in the community for
>the previous 5 years.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: max [mailto:max at michiganimc.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 03:28 PM
> > To: 'Working Group for IMC-US.', 'deva'
> > Cc: 'Working Group for IMC-US.'
> > Subject: Re: [IMC-US] personal reprtback for
>indy folks abouttheNationalCOnference on Med
> >
> > i think that the discussions on media democracy and media justice can
>(and
> > should) apply to indymedia as well. we have issues of accountability,
> > transparency, access, and oppression in our networks and collectives as
>well,
> > and it:s important to remember that simply calling something 'indymedia'
>does
> > not make it revolutionary.
> >
> > max
> >
> >
> >
> > Quoting deva <drdartist at riseup.net>:
> >
> > > I have just finally read through all the comments on this thread.
> > >
> > > I find the discussion around issues of media somewhat frustrating in
> > > general. I feel like there ends up being alot of defining such as
>Media
> > > Reform, Media Democracy and Media Justice. Fine as it is, but I find
> > > that all off target.
> > >
> > > Fuck the Corporate Media!
> > >
> > > Corporate use of the public airwaves is predicated on the notion of
> > > doing the public a service. It is not. Corporate media may be the
> > > single most destructive force in our society. They are not providing
> > > anything for the public good. Corporate use of the public airwaves,
> > > should be rescinded. Period.
> > >
> > > To me this is such an obvious and basic position to stand on. Yet I
> > > rarely hear it stated. I believe this should be on the lips of every
> > > media activist! Corporate media failure to fulfill its social contract
> > > can be so clearly demonstrated. It is a sharp sword, that is not used.
> > >
> > > I attended a media panel at a conference here in Portland a while
>back.
> > > It was a panel with some liberal media reformers and a couple folks
> > > from the local right wing radio squaring off. I asked some pointed
> > > questions, and finally suggested that the profit motive trumps the
> > > public good and therefore, Corporate media is failing its public
>trust.
> > > The right wing guys argued with me, while the reformers, who subtly
> > > blamed the public, ended up lost because I drew a line that left them
> > > no longer the opposition.
> > >
> > > That basic challenge to their right to public resources, opened much
> > > more interesting questions and comments and changed the dynamic of the
> > > discussion.
> > >
> > > So these are my basic points......
> > >
> > > 1- Corporate media has demonstrated beyond any doubt, its unworthiness
> > > to the use of public resources.
> > >
> > > 2- Corporate media is poison. It should be avoided. It is the most
> > > sophisticated system of brainwashing ever devised. It is doing its
>job
> > > very well. Nobody is immune. So many activists still drink of that
> > > bitter brew, and perhaps do not see just how much it dulls the ability
> > > of the psyche to think and see outside the bounds that it sets.
> > >
> > > 3- The tools are there for people to make their own media. Independent
> > > media is the clear answer.
> > >
> > >
> > > I would say too many people show a deference to the Corporate media.
> > > Still hold out hope for it or falsely conceive of what it is or how it
> > > works. Corporate media is the propaganda arm of the institutions of
> > > power that seek to control the entire world. It will never serve the
> > > person, so the person should stop serving it, by not consuming it, by
> > > denying it has any claim to public resources other than through force.
> > >
> > > Indymedia is not alternative media as in an alternative to Corporate
> > > media. They have entirely different purposes and as far as legitimacy,
> > > Indymedia already far surpasses Corporate media. You will find more
> > > truth on one day in Indymedia, than you will find in the entirety of
> > > U.S. corporate media over the next 6 months. There is no comparison.
> > >
> > > Corporate Media is a disease
> > > Indymedia is a cure
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > deva
> > > portland indymedia contributor
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On May 18, 2005, at 1:16 PM, Tribal Scribal wrote:
> > >
> > > > Right, and btw to add to the dialogue here's rabbles two cents on
>the
> > > > conference from his blog:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.anarchogeek.com/articles/2005/05/16/followup-on-the-
> > > > national-conference-on-media-reform
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > d.o.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> From: Chris Anderson <chanders_imc at yahoo.com>
> > > >> Reply-To: "Working Group for IMC-US." <imc-us at lists.ucimc.org>
> > > >> To: "Working Group for IMC-US." <imc-us at lists.ucimc.org>
> > > >> Subject: Re: [IMC-US] personal reprtback for indy folks
> > > >> abouttheNationalCOnference on Media Reform.
> > > >> Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 09:10:31 -0700 (PDT)
> > > >>
> > > >> if nothing else, this NCMR was worth it for generating
> > > >> this really great discussion. This is "mahhhvelous,"
> > > >> as Donald with the Indypendent would say. I hope folks
> > > >> find a way to get these thoughts out into the public
> > > >> domain.
> > > >>
> > > >> chris
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> __________________________________
> > > >> Do you Yahoo!?
> > > >> Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
> > > >> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> IMC-US mailing list
> > > >> IMC-US at lists.ucimc.org
> > > >> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's
> > > > FREE!
>http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > IMC-US mailing list
> > > > IMC-US at lists.ucimc.org
> > > > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > IMC-US mailing list
> > > IMC-US at lists.ucimc.org
> > > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IMC-US mailing list
> > IMC-US at lists.ucimc.org
> > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us
> >
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>IMC-US mailing list
>IMC-US at lists.ucimc.org
>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
More information about the IMC-US
mailing list