[Imc-web] request for feature status on IMC home page

[Mike Lehman]

Hi Randall,
Altering the title that way will work for me. The server has been done 
all day, but I'll make it a Feature when it becomes available.

Yeah, I'm completely aware that the FCC regs have no direct application 
here. It's just that we don't have an attorney standing by to give us an 
opinion and this seemed to be a way to conceptualize the concerns I had 
about the title.

In fact, given the unprecedented way in which Indymedia and our 501c3 
status present the possibility of conflicts in certain areas that remain 
untested, even a lawyer might not have a definitive answer. It's just 
that I think there are certain things we should be cautious about so as 
to avoid creating the appearance of an issue, which usually avoids an 
issue being raised that is really irrelevant. Having had to deal with 
this on the website before, I think a bit of caution as long as it 
doesn't hurt the story is probably a good policy. It's a long 
complicated story, so I won't go into it here.
Regards,
Mike Lehman

Randall Cotton wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mike Lehman" <rebelmike at earthlink.net>
> To: "Randall Cotton" <recotton at earthlink.net>; <imc-web at ucimc.org>
> Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 1:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [Imc-web] request for feature status on IMC home page
>
>
> : Hi Randall,
> : The article does have a number of qualities that make it a viable
> : feature. As both a news organization and a 501c3, I think we have wide
> : latitude to publish the news as we see fit.
> :
> : The problem I see is in publishing as a feature something quite
> : literally called a "call to action." As you know, this is what triggers
> : various issues if you're a community or public broadcaster, although I'm
> : certain we can't really draw an exact analogy here, nor should we.
>
> Well, the prohibition against "calls to action" is from FCC regulations and
> pertains only to commercial underwriting announcements on non-commercial
> broadcast stations (see http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/nature.html ), so I'm not
> sure there's much of an analogy there.
>
> : However, I think I'd prefer to stay in the safe grey area here and make
> : it a feature if we can somehow come up with a different title less
> : likely to cause future problems. I'm not a lawyer, but I would prefer
> : not to make a Feature of something which someone with an ax to grind
> : could make an issue over.
>
> If you're still concerned, feel free to omit the words "URGENT call to action!"
> from the title. How about that?
>
> Thanks
> R
>
>
>
> : Mike Lehman
> :
> : Randall Cotton wrote:
> : > Hi,
> : >
> : > I don't know what the procedure is (if any) to request "feature" status, but
> for
> : > what it's worth, I'm requesting it for the post I just made to the IMC web
> site
> : > regarding breaking news and a subsequent call to action on the efforts to
> gain a
> : > new Public Access Cable TV Channel for Champaign/Urbana.
> : >
> : > And FWIW, I'm requesting this on the basis that:
> : >
> : > 1. The most current features are fairly obsolete.
> : >
> : > 2. This is a media issue (and after all, we are the Independent *Media*
> Center).
> : >
> : > 3. It's a fairly substantive article, perhaps worthy of feature status on
> that
> : > count alone.
> : >
> : > 4. Time is of the essence - people need to see this sooner rather than later
> if
> : > they want to be informed in time to help the cause. The call to action
> refers to
> : > attendance at this Tuesday's Champaign City Council meeting.
> : >
> : > Thanks
> : > R
>