Wednesday, September 06, 2006
What's Wrong with the Media
Trash the U.S. military and you might suffer a bad look at a well-stocked PX as the downside for winning the Pulitzer; trash Hezbollah or Hamas, and you might end up headless on the side of the road.Despite not being exposed to anywhere near the same risk, it's pretty obvious which side Indymedia chooses.
Read it all and consider: Why is Indymedia proposed as the solution?
Update: Via comments on this post, I am busted
Hmmm, the author shares the same political outlook as this blog - " strongly hawkish, pro-Israel views on the Middle East."(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Davis_Hanson) That'd be your bias showing then.Or perhaps not... Who knew, reprinting one paragraph would expose me for being "strongly hawkish"? I always thought of myself as something of a chestnut-backed chickadee however each to his own.
It may surprise my anonymous contributor that I read very widely. From the Arab news, Israeli press, obscure American local papers, blogs and yes, even Indymedia. As well as quoteing Victor Davis Hanson, I have quoted Mike Moore, George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden. Your point again?
I pity anybody who gets their news from a single source (particularly if it is Indymedia) or bases their own research solely on a Wikipedia article that anybody can modify. As I have continually maintained - the media has got huge problems with accuracy and balance. Although he denies it, Indymedia certainly has presented itself as a worthwhile alternative however simply can't be taken seriously as one, for all the reasons demonstrated.
Who proclaims Indymedia as the solution?
Furthermore, since when did Indymedia claim that it is "balanced"?
"The NYC Independent Media Center is a grassroots organization committed to using media production and distribution as tools for promoting social and economic justice in the New York City Area. We are dedicated to addressing issues that the mainstream media neglects and we do not conceal our ideals behind a false objectivity. We hope to empower people to "become the media" by providing democratic access to available technologies and information."
"Inherent in the mainstream corporate media is a strong bias towards Capitalism's power structures, and it is an important tool in propagating these structures around the globe. While the mainstream media conceal their manifold biases and alignments, we clearly state our position. Indymedia UK does not attempt to take an objective and impartial standpoint: Indymedia UK clearly states its subjectivity."
Victor Davis Hanson aint objective, you aint objective and Indymedia doesn't even pretend to be objective.
You wouldn't deny that, would you?
You might want to think about how to prove the "result" part of your claim as that implies that any attack was due to the criticism.
For me, Indymedia's problems aren't so much bias as hypocrisy. How can you claim to be promoting social and economic justice and claim to be against racism while allowing antisemitism to flourish.
Lets look at UKIMC's Mission Statement:
"The Indymedia UK website provides an interactive platform for reports from the struggles for a world based on freedom, cooperation, justice and solidarity, and against environmental degradation, neoliberal exploitation, racism and patriarchy."
Simple - it isn't allowed to flourish. It would be hypocrisy to have that mission statement and then ban all criticism of the Israeli state and its expansionist agenda in case someone screamed anti-semitism or the even more revealing "self hating" label.
The attacks on media by Israel and the US are well documented -you choose to excuse them. No doubt supporters of Middle East regimes do the same thing.
To then back up the claim you provide links to
1) Entrenched Antisemitism on Sydney Indymedia - Sydney is not part of IMC UK.
2) Anonymous claims by self-alleged IMCUK collective members - who give no evidence of anti-semitic posts.
3)A post pointing to LA Indymedia and a hidden post on Indybay - neither of these are part of IMCUK
4)A post pointing to Melbourne and Sydney Indymedias - neither of whom are part of the IMCUK collectives.
You have to take anonymous posts with a pinch of salt - why are these self-alleged ex-members of IMCUK not prepared to put their names to their stand against the undemonstrated widespread anti-semitism on IMC UK?
Why not post the url of some of these anti-semitic posts? After all, if anti-semitism is allowe3d to "flourish" on IMC Uk it shouldn't take very long, should it?
Do you have anything other than anonymous and unsubstantiated claims of antisemitism on IMC UK?
Or do you subscribe to the theory that if one branch of McDonalds serves Halal, then all McDonalds sell Halal?
I don't suppose literally dozens of examples listed on this site would suffice?
How many of these “prove Indymedia is anti-Semitic” threads do we have to have? Loom through the archives we have set up, but don’t come here and act like we have not documented it. If you really think UK Indymedia is free of anti-Semitism, then good for you. I would like to sell you a bride in Brawley, and I am sure you would love to hear about a young-earth theory I heard on the internet.
Most of your claims about indymedia relate to anonymous commnents where people claim that there is antisemitism.
You're not a very serios blog then if you cannot show evidence of the stuff you claim "flourishes".
antisemitism indymedia uk site: indymediawatch.blogspot.com
Roland Dodds, I don't see any questions to answer, neither do i see any urls for the antisemitism that is allowed to flourish on Indymedia UK.
I think that this site has a somewhat biased agenda around the question of antisemitism - and until we have some specific posts to look at, the discussion is absolutely and meaningless.
Until you can tell me why Israel is singled out at Indymedia, I would say we have little to talk about.
If you genuinely used those search terms, read a few of the posts that came back and followed the links therein, yet are still convinced that UK Indymedia hasn't got a problem at all, you are correct. A discussion with you is meaningless, although not for the reasons you might think.
Your smugness conceals your foolishness. Did you actually follow the links after the aforesaid Google search? Did you read the posts on this blog?
Nearly every single post on this blog links to a corresponding piece on the Indymedia site in question.
Did you follow any of the links galore within any of those articles?
Or did you stare blankly at a Google results page and think "Aha! Just as I thought". Are you actually that helpless Sam?
Let me pose one back at you. In an earlier comment, you claimed this blog has a "somewhat biased agenda around the question of antisemitism"
Pray tell, Sam, what is the "question of antisemitism"?
"What the IDF does in their 'Killing Fields', the by them occupied and/or invaded territories like Palestine and Lebanon, is by human observers called 'ethnic cleansing'. Like the Nazis are said to have done to the jews: the extermination/killing of as many as is possible. Now those creatures who say they are the offspring of the victims of the Nazis, are doing the same as they blame the Nazis for: they are holocausting day and night other human beings and don't care."
Population of all Palestinian areas has increased consistently. Yet, this article claims Jews are the new Nazis, "ethnically cleansing" an area despite ample evidence to the contrary.
Surely not antisemitic.
"Doing the inhuman bidding and arms twisting for the Israeli killers and their profit making banking cartel in the EU the London cartel runs, are the (tax paid) EU 'ministers' for foreign affairs of the worst Quisling governments within the EU: England, The Netherlands and Germany."
Jews control world banking.
Nope, nothing to see here..
Then there's a bunch of links to articles spreading the Khazar myth and various other far-right theories.
Then there's references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zionism. http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/06/343873.html?c=on is that anti-Semitic enough?
Of course not.
Come along Sam, tell us all that rehashing age-old antisemitic lies is really only "anti-Zionist". Tell us the above are merely a single example or two and demand hundreds more. Twist, turn, deceive and ignore.
I also note that there are no comments to the article - and would be surprised if there was an email to the relevant list.
It is quite possible that no-one from IMC UK has read it.
The reference to the Elders of Zion was by someone pointing out that rense.com is anti-semitic - is it anti-semitic to do that?
Well, so we now have 2 urls.
"flourish" seems like an overstatement
Take a look, while you're at it, at the ravings of TW in the thread that follows. He's one of those "really, I'm not an antisemite, I'm just anti-Zionist" types who all the same lets slip with stuff like "Jews own half the US economy."
The problem is simple. It's clear that TW is an antisemite. Couldn't be clearer. LA lets him post away madly all the same. In doing so, they destroy their own credibility on the antisemitism issue.
To pretend it's not happening, or that it doesn't happen often, is to turn a blind eye to one of Indymedia's most self-destructive tendencies.
I don't follow la indymedia - did you read the article though?
The original post made general reference to Indymedia. It is you who limited discussion to UK Indymedia (ref: your comment to David Gehrig). However, examples of antisemitism were pointed out to you and you have either ignored these "Not one url then - I've done a google search and there isn't one url I can find there either." or summarily dismissed them: ""flourish" seems like an overstatement" as well as ignored questions aimed directly at yourself whilst demanding answers to your own questions.
The very reason antisemitism flourishes on Indymedia is that its strongest proponents are blind to the problem. They are in denial and you have nicely demonstrated the problem for those reading this thread.
Further discussion seems a waste of time. I do not believe you will be part of any solution and think it's time you left.
Why, wrong kind of comments. Heh - why don't you become just like you Indymedia is, and start hiding my comments.
I don't live in LA, have never met anyone from LA Indymedia, and have no need to go there.
On the other hand, I know Indymedia Uk pretty well, and am interested to know how claims about the Indymedia UK and remain keen to explore gdogs claims that:
"...you claim to be promoting social and economic justice and claim to be against racism while allowing antisemitism to flourish." which was followed by a quote of the IMC UK Mission Statement.
Roland Dodds keeps complaining that I haven't answered his question. He hasn't actually asked one but if it is asking why there are many Israel strories on indymedia, then I would say that is because so many people have posted them - and because there is widespread concern about Israel's impact on the rest of the world, as well as a genuine empathy with the people who suffer as a result of israeli occupation and beligerence.
No doubt Roland Dodds sees it as an indication of anti-semitism.
Quite a number of the posts on this blog are about Israel - in fact it seems pretty apparent that support for Israel is the driving force behind this blog despite the grandiose claims that:
"Indymedia was set up to fill a void in the corporate media. An idea I thought long overdue. Unfortunately, as a largely unmoderated, unrestricted medium it was promptly over-run by bigots, trolls and Nazis confusing free-speech with hate-speech. I believe the Indy Media experiment has failed. As Indymedia claims it keeps the corporate media honest, I decided it was time someone watched Indymedia instead. Be careful... You may not like what you see."
Every accusation that is thrown at Indymedia can also be made of this blog - and when you start hiding my comments, you will not really have any claim to the moral high ground.
Have a nice day.
You've compiled statistics? Present them. Or have you just searched the site for articles on Israel, found a bunch and reached another ill-informed (and wrong) conclusion. You are doing very well so far.
This site points to problems on Indymedia. As noted, alongside libel, crazy conspiracy theories, shoddy journalism and false reportage, antisemitism is a significant problem for Indymedia. It follows therefore that this site will include numerous examples thereof.
Every accusation that is thrown at Indymedia can also be made of this blog
Really? Name two.
when you start hiding my comments, you will not really have any claim to the moral high ground.
First of all, I haven't hidden any of your comments.
Secondly, even if I did - unlike Indymedia, this site doesn't grandiosely purport to be a quality alternative to the media or proudly support an open publishing experiment (which it has allowed to fail but refuses to acknowledge).
That is to say, I could very reasonably delete (not hide) your comments without being as totally full of shit as Indymedia has allowed itself to become. Thank you for baiting me.
I always assumed the Jewish attacks on the Indymedia sites were because the people there had strong anti Jewish feelings in the tradition of the European Left, it never occured to me they might really think they are offering real critical review of Israel and its actions. These people are really scary !
What a shame, I feel sorry for them
The whole bit about "Zionism" and "It's Israel not the Jewish people" has been the most blatant attempt to hide the anti- semitism that is at the heart of Left wing opinion. Ever wondered why the old Soviet Union persecuted its Jewish citizens ? Why Cuba does now ? Why Stalin spent a lifetime hiding his secret Jewish Grandmother ?
The Left is anti Jewish, simple as that