Sunday, July 09, 2006
Playing in the Sand
Demonstrating once again only that conspiracy theorists really lack an understanding of the scientific method, this hypothesis is first presented at the end of the "experiment", rather than the beginning.
This got me thinking, perhaps I should conduct my own credible 9/11 experiment using Lego and a similar level of professionalism. it seems, however, I have been beaten to it.
I have previously pondered where those who flee Indymedia end up. Looking at this post on the Democratic Underground, I may have found my answer. The article and the follow-up comments there would be hilarious, were it not for the fact that many of them are written and taken entirely seriously.
Update: Via Annie in the comments, others are also trying to prove similar conspiracy theories with similar quality home-science. Watch this thread closely.
have a look at this thread and enjoy: http://discardedlies.com/entry/?17701_discard-amerikkkas-lies
Take DC Indymedia for example--one of my least favorite indymedias mind you, and deserving of other criticism.. Editors there routinely hide 9/11 conspiracy stories posted to the newswire as "9/11 conspiracy junk".
There's plenty of reasons to criticize different indymedia editorial choices, but you're just engaging in false propaganda and defamation with this kind of argument. Shame on you.
Shame shame shame on that feminized Gomer.
Shame on them.
Buddy, you got it wrong. I'm not Nessie. As a matter of fact, I rather despise Nessie and his politics and (what I see as) his blatant anti-semitism.
Make sensible critique. Blame editors when:
1. Racist, wacho, anti-semitic, etc. stories get featured.
2. When comments and stories are hidden or deleted based on unevenly applied standards that hint at underlying racism, anti-semitism, wacho-ism, etc.
3. When the media actually was collectively authored by the Indymedia collective.
There's plenty of places where that comes up, and that's where it makes sense to critique.
But if you seriously believe what you wrote in your blog's description, that Indymedia's initial idea of having an open news site and fostering greater media democracy and free expression was a good idea, then you should know that with that comes the inevitable flotsam and idiocy, and that it's unreasonable and daft to hold the site accountable to everything posted in the open forum.
In short: stop taking cheap and unwarranted shots. It's invalid criticism, and at best it just gets easily (and rightfully) dismissed as you not understanding how Indymedia works.
I'm saying this because I do think you have valid gripes with Indymedia, and I hate to see that criticism messed up with dreck and sloppy thinking like this.
No, it's a testament to the fact that wackos and racists will post wherever they find an open forum. (This story is an example of exactly that; it's not like Indymedia is the only or focal point for this junk. They spam it everywhere--to any open news site and message forum they find.
Lots of idiots say stupid and racist things in the US. Does the fact they do it in US borders and rely on the US's value on open expression make it the US's position and fault? No. It just says that the US is a place with a heavy value on free expression, and that while such forums are important, they get abused, and that's just the price you pay for the more important freedom granted.
Go after the idiots posting the material, not the open forums that are vital and are being abused.
Then I am sorry to tell you that it is not a news site. If Indymedia wants to be referred to as a forum, then they should do that. But you can’t hide under the banner of open source publishing and still be considered a news site with the lack of verifiable content.
“Lots of idiots say stupid and racist things in the US. Does the fact they do it in US borders and rely on the US's value on open expression make it the US's position and fault?”
No, but if the Republican Party had a website that represented them, and a number of racists and crazies used it to spread their message, it would represent the party. Even if it was not condoned or ever representative of the group as a whole.
Open source publishing is great, but Indymedia can not be a newswire without some type of editorial control and standards. They should reassess what they intend their website to be.
That's what nessie says:
Indymedia has become infected with disinformation, enemy propaganda, gibberish, flame wars and spam. They discredit Indymedia as a source of credible information. They discredit every IMCista as an activist. They are, in short, bad journalism and worse politics.
Indymedia is at a critical juncture in it's development. Either it learns to employ even the most basic, minimum standards of journalism or it will never be credible. That means it will never live up to its enormous potential. It will remain in the rut it's in now until, one by one those volunteers who recognize the virtue and necessity of credibility, lose faith, abandon hope and drift away. When enough of them have gone, Indymedia, at least as we know it, will die.
That would be a great shame, for with just a little more work and care, Indymedia could seriously compete for the hearts and minds of the news hungry public, with the ubiquitous propaganda mill of the corporate-government complex. If it can't do that, it's a failure, and should be abandoned in favor of something that does work.
Foremost of the basic principles of journalism which Indymedia needs to employ is fact checking. Disinformation has no place in credible news. Forgeries are the quintessential disinformation. They have long been used by the forces of repression to discredit activists, and activist organizations of all stripes.