[Imc] Evaluating IMC work

[Mike Lehman]

Hi Folks,
Although I'm replying to Paul's original post, my reply includes
comments that apply to others who have raised this issue in other posts
and meetings.

I think there are two different issues here. There are things like the
website where anyone can post, including the public. I think we ought to
stay away from censoring or otherwise editing this material, except for
obviously libelous material or posts by outright racists or other such
material clearly unwelcome on an IMC site. There is little you can or
should do about what is put there, for the most part. The basis for my
belief is that you impede access to diverse input if you start imposing
standards of any sort there. Besides, if the public has access, what
else can you do.

As for the center portion of the webpage, it might be useful to have an
editorial board that has authority to move articles to this position. If
we do that, we should be prepared to write a relatively succinct
standard that keeps away from generalized discussion of policy goals and
then let the folks on the editorial board do its work. If you don't like
what they are doing, run for the board and do it yourself or write a
piece explaining your disagreement and post it.

The point I'm trying to make is that I really don't want to sit around
in endless discussions about what should be done, and to see the IMC
wasting a lot of time that could be better spent in actually doing media
work. If there is something that someone disgrees with, then they should
write or produce a reply. Setting standards that have as their basis
anything other than basic grammar and writing skills leads us down a
twisting and slippery path that will undermine our ability to serve as a
open forum for community discussion.

As for such productions as the radio shows we are doing now, I think
there should be an attempt to keep editorial and news commentary
seperate to the extent pratical, but I think that trying to do anything
other than to urge folks to do so is simply something that will waste a
lot of energy. Do any of us really want to act as censors, as this is
where we will be lead in this discussion if we give it any official form
other than informal discussion among ourselves and the right of reply.
If we go to a daily show, which I hope we are able to do in the near
future on WEFT and/or RFU, there is simply not going to be time to sit
and argue over what's appropriate.

If we end up in a financial relationship with WEFT to supply news,
replacing Pacifica, that is one place where we would need to define this
better, but I think usual disclaimers serve us well for the time being.
For our shows there, I suggest adding to the disclaimer that "if the way
the news is being done is something you disagree with, then you are
certainly invited, as a community member, to get involved yourself in
the IMC-we welcome your opinion and input."

Ultimately, if you don't like the way someone does the news, then do it
yourself. That is what the IMC is all about and there will be almost
unlimited opportunities to do just exactly that. The good stuff will
rise to the top and the bad will sink to the bottom, as it often does in
life. We should certainly have educational opportunities to expose
everyone who attends to the basics of news writing. After that, let
folks do their thing. 

I think bias is inevitable and we should not attempt to buy into the
mythology of the establishment press, that they somehow have objectivity
in the way they present things. Try to address both sides in your work,
but we owe no one any apologies for taking a position either, as long as
we don't misrepresent the facts. There is really no boundary between
news and propoaganda, but instead a continuum that is hard to define and
even harder to police. The best news is still propaganda for someone,
but the reader or listener has a hard time detecting it. That should be
our goal, rather than any ill-defined, uneforceable standard. We may
fall short of this at some times, but I think we should spend more
energy on making the next piece than on criticizing the last one.

As for evaluations, I think our main criteria for success as an
organization should be how good a job we are doing involving the wider
community. Any overemphasis on standards will discourage community
members from getting involved.
Mike Lehman

Paul Kaiser wrote:
> 
> Criteria to evaluate the IMC's work:
> 
> First, what's our mission?
> a. To report local news overlooked or underrepresented by "other" news
> sources, being certain all facts from both sides are presented?
> b. To report same with some bias?
> c. Something else?
> 
> I know 3 meetings ago Eric brought this up in a way, mentioning that the
> "other" sources often tend to be biased due to various influences. I was
> unable to stay after the meeting, when I believe it was going to be
> discussed further. The question seemed to be "do we slant, in response
> to their slant?"
> 
> So, before thinking of ways to evaluate our work -- what is the common
> conception of the goal of our work?