[Imc-web] Re: Inappropriate Post

[Wendy Edwards]

On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 10:51:54PM -0600, Mike Lehman wrote:
> 
> One of the first unwritten principles of Indymedia is what we're here 
> for: Indymedia exists to comfort the afflicted and afflict the 
> comfortable. This can often be disconcerting, particularly when we see 
> things that push our personal comfort envelope.

The problem is that some of the posts to Indymedia, especially
Brian's and Chris's, just inspire contempt.  I've talked with other
local bloggers and heard this firsthand.

> However...
> I do NOT see the reason behind the need for a comment that suggests that 
> regular users of UC IMC are engaged in writing fiction -- most 
> especially one made by an editor of the site. We might as well leave the 
> editing to the trolls if that is the best we can do. Even worse is to 
> think that such a suggestion was important enough to rate being the 
> subject of an article, in addition to the comment itself.

Well, let's say that some of Brian's "investigative reporting" is
a little hard to classify, and most of the non-fiction that I read
seems to involve better fact-checking.

> Wendy, I know you well enough to realize that you probably made these 
> posts in jest. But in the context, just like the context of the story 
> the comment was first associated with, it was monumentally insensitive. 
> Are you really suggesting that the idea that the justice system in 
> Champaign County, let alone Illinois or the US as a whole, is not 
> afflicted by endemic racism? That such an idea is a fiction? 

It's quite possible that the justice system in Champaign County has
a problem with racism.  Do you think that Brian's inflammatory posts
and ability to repeatedly  make a jackass of himself in public will 
help improve the situation?

Because it 
> sure sounds like that is what you are referring to. I can't help but 
> think that others, who perhaps don't know you as well, would jump to 
> that conclusion.

Frankly, some people jump to some pretty ridiculous conclusions, and
I'm not interested in kowtowing to them.  The idea that I either think
Brian's reporting is great, or I'm denying racism is a false 
dichotomy, and I'm certainly not willing to be bullied into playing
that game.

 And I do NOT -- in fact -- will NOT defend that. Hell, 
> we might as well hand editing over to the News-Gazette editorial staff 
> as trouble ourselves with trying to offer any alternatives, no matter 
> how imperfect they might be.

Being imperfect is fine.  Being willing to stoop to levels that
other sites won't is a problem.

> I realize you have a discomfort with some of Brian's reporting. I'd 
> suggest that you either meet with him to discuss your issues or you 
> refrain from further editing if you feel that such comments are in 
> order. The state's attorney is a big girl -- she can defend herself. 

Well... actually, from what I understand, the State's Attorney was
rather struck by Brian's ability to consistently call attention to
himself.  When he demanded to come into her office when she was talking
with others, that really made quite an impression on everyone there.
Brian turns her off, but I think she realizes that he's more of a 
problem for us than for her.  

> is completely inappropriate for you to engage in activity which, if it 
> had been anonymously posted, I would have dealt with for the obvious 
> trolling it seems to be on the face of it, because holding the reporting 
> of others, as well as what are surely the heartfelt comments of what 
> appear to be regular users of the site up to contempt is simply 
> unacceptable for an editor to engage in. It calls into question the 
> judgment we all use, if you engage in such behavior.

Well, actually I do have my own doubts about Brian's judgment.  In
fact, I'd say that some of his more ridiculous posts hold the UCIMC
site up to contempt.  For example, when he got petulant because he
wasn't invited to pontificate at a sentencing hearing, that was
cringe-worthy.  I can say that the post about how the N-G should
fire Mary Schenk and replace her with a "writer of color" also made
an impression, especially since he forwarded it to a mailing list
that included Mary Schenk.  Is this kind of boorish behavior 
supposed to engender respect for UCIMC?  

> I would feel much better about this if you removed both posts immediately.

Fine.  They're gone.  Since you cc'd your comments to the imc-web
list, I'm also cc'ing my response.

Wendy