[IMC-US] personal reprtback
for indy folks abouttheNationalCOnference on Med
sheri at speakeasy.org
sheri at speakeasy.net
Thu May 26 18:49:10 CDT 2005
> -----Original Message-----
> From: deva [mailto:drdartist at riseup.net]
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 11:43 PM
> To: 'Working Group for IMC-US.'
> Subject: Re: [IMC-US] personal reprtback for indy folks abouttheNationalCOnference on Med
>
> Human beings are flawed... I agree that it is important to examine
> oneself... but the recognition of ones flaws should not result in an
> inability to act and speak decisively.
>
> Some things are rather clear. Corporate media is a thoroughly
> destructive force in the society.
>
> Some few years back, up in Canada, there was an effort to protect a
> particularly beautiful area of ancient old growth forest. Radical
> forest groups, along with mainstream environmental groups, logging
> companies and the BC government all sat down to discuss the issue. A
> proposal was put forth to protect this area that the radical groups
> argued would result in its destruction because there were no buffer
> zones. They refused to agree to it so they were excluded, publicly
> decried as too radical and unwilling to negotiate. The deal went
> forward with the blessing of the mainstream enviro groups. As
> predicted, the grove was doomed from high winds during winter and
> within 2 years was decimated.
>
> Revolution is just a whole lot of reform really. I am not against
> reform as such, but there needs to be a realism about it. Those
> mainstream enviro groups in the above example, though obviously well
> meaning, ended up validating a flawed proposal that the logging
> companies KNEW would give them what they wanted in the end, and provide
> them with a PR victory. Their good intentions ended up as a negative
> result. That sort of thing cannot be acceptable in order to appear
> inclusive and all that stuff.
>
> How much reform is needed that corporate media is no longer a
> destructive force?
>
> That it is a remarkably destructive force, is self evident. That it has
> utterly failed its public trust in the use of public airwaves, is
> indisputable.
>
> Like the mainstream enviro groups in the above example, media reform
> thought, draws a line in the sand to define its opposition which
> Corporate media doesn't really care about because it will get what it
> wants anyway. If you accept a position where your failure is all but
> assured, you may as well not even try.
>
> To draw a line where a positive outcome is possible is not radical,
> crazy, unreasonable and so on. To stick to it does not mean you are
> closed minded, rigid etc. It is only in a society so used to lies, that
> a simple truth is called extreme.
>
> regards
> deva
>
>
>
> On May 26, 2005, at 10:33 AM, sheri at speakeasy.org wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> IMC-US mailing list
> IMC-US at lists.ucimc.org
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us
>
More information about the IMC-US
mailing list