[Imc-web] "independent" media

[Danielle Chynoweth]

Although I agree that altering the title of this web story by Randall does
not affect the substance of the story, I am concerned about the "cautious"
tactic since it can so quickly slip into the mode of self-censorship.

For example, the public i censored a story about Tod Satterthwaite because
it was prior to an election. We are not truely an independent media venue
when we censor a story like the public i did.  The last public i meeting I
went to, I was told that the public i would not run stories that showed
public officials in a negative light before an election.  I was agast
since such stories (as long as they are well researched and accurate) are
essential to creating an informed democracy.  (Before folks start getting
defensive, please know that I think the public i is the best thing on the
streets today and it is only out of my love of it that I want it to be
better).

Instead of cautiously "watching our back" I would like us to:

1) Get a legal opinion (from EFF or Stanford or one of our 
Indymedia friendly buddies).  Sascha, do you have contacts for this?

2) Start the discussion of moving the public i and possibly other media
venues out from under the 501c3.  We could do an assessment to see how
much those working groups gain from tax exemption. There is a tax status
for non profit generating media venues we could consider that would allow
the public i and other venues we have to be free to speak their mind.

I am ccing this to print as well.

I would like to discuss this at steering and hope to stimulate discussion 
within the public i staff and web editorial team.

cheers,

- Danielle


On Sun, 7 May 2006, Mike Lehman wrote:

> 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
> >   
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-web mailing list
> Imc-web at lists.ucimc.org
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-web
> 

-- 
| Danielle Chynoweth