Saturday, November 25, 2006
Stick That in yer Pipe
It's kind of funny. For all your intimidating "I'm watching you indymedia" talk, and sprawling 5000-word essays, life is pretty much going on the same way it was before you started your blog. Your time would be better spent with another three units at the community college.Going to all the trouble of writing that strikes me as similar to queuing up for three hours to get into a nightclub and once finally inside, telling, people it sucks.
Whatever man, whatever. A subsequent response to this comment however, was flattering:
I can't comment on other Indymedia sites because I don't read them but I can talk about the difference this blog has made to the UK site. I say this blog because it has been mentioned in posts, comments and moderator emails in direct relation to the following subjectsIt's nice to think one has made a difference. However, the ultimate responsibility lies with Indymedia's advocates, and (with particular reference to UK Indymedia) they have been grossly negligent in this regard. Amateurishness is one thing. Hopelessness is another.
i) Concern raised about the number of anti Semitic posts and comments on the site.
ii) The decision by a number of those who used to be involved in the running of the site to leave and begin the process of setting up a new Indymedia site for Britain
iii) An increase in the support for those campaigning for Cuban political prisoners DIRECTLY because Indymedia UK worked so hard to hide all reports about the protests outside the London Cuban embassy.
iv) The removal of password access to a number of people who used to do work on the site and the tightening of control by the small clique who follow a Stalinist agenda of total control (I will admit this is far from a good thing but it was because of this blog)
v) Finally and perhaps not totaly down to this blog but it was certainly a contributing factor. The massive reduction in the number of hits the UK site now gets together with a enormous reduction in the number of real posts because people who are interested in the real issues do not want to wade through the lies, half truths and obviously manufactured nonsense that makes up much of the UK site.
So as usual when somebody has the temerity to point out the problems at Indymedia they are accused of being Zionists and Facists. Ignoring for one moment the disgusting policy of trying to make "zionist" a prejoritive term when will those who are involved with Indymedia understand that we are supportive of the Indymedia idea but not the way it has been perverted to serve the needs of a small group.
Perhaps what is most sad is how easily manipulated are those who do the day to day work while not understanding the bigger picture.
Why don't you actually start carrying through on your stated principles, rather than attacking those who point out that you're failing them?
The truth is, calling someone a “Fascist” is nothing more than a last ditch effort made by an individual who has no real argument to put forward.
Well, yes, as a general rule terrorist fellators are hard to ignore.
The people who contribute to Indymedia Watch do it because we support the ideal of an independent news and media source, free from corporate interference and control. Regretfully Indymedia no longer represents that (I'm not sure it ever did) as the majority of the sites (not all) are now run by unelected, unrepresentitive, individuals who are more interested in pushing their own view of how the world is rather than facilitating the site for others.
The are numerous examples but I will choose three from the UK site as this was the one I was involved with;
A - Cuba, regardless of ones views about the political system within Cuba the fact remains that there is a growing organisation within the UK campaigning against the policies of the Cuban government. When this organisation has on the UK site reported its activities
(mostly protests outside the embassy and letter writing campaigns to Cuban officials concerning politcal prisoners held in Havana) it has been subject to a systamatic series of actions by Indymedia UK to stop it. Hiding and deleting of posts, removal of pictures, altering of website details and ridicule of those involved in an attempt to discredit them. Do you think this is right and in the spririt of Indymedia ?
B - Israel and Jews. Indymedia Watch and many others have identified the long standing problem of anti Semitism on Indymedia dressed up as reports about Israel and its Armed Forces. I condem without reservation Irael and its political leaders when the Israeli military or State behaves in a wrong way but I also condem the blatant way Indymedia tries to link the behaviour of Israel with Jews and Jewish companies around the world.
Do you think this is right and in the spririt of Indymedia ?
C - Racism, Black on Black and Asian on Asian racism is a growing problem in the UK. Problems between Muslims and Hindus for example in London is now a weekly occurance, West Indian v African issues widespread and recognised however when these issues are raised the answer from Indymedia UK is always the same - "BNP trolling". This despite the fact that Community Workers in Asian areas for example are keen to have this problem brought to greater prominence within the wider population to help address the reasons behind it. Posts or comments about this type of racism are always removed or hidden preventing discussion and progress to happen.
Do you think this is right and in the spririt of Indymedia ?
In conclusion I would ask you to consider why it was felt acceptable for a small unelected group to decide that password access to the site should be restricted to itself and that the complaints and questions of those persons who had worked on the site for many years should go unaswered ?
Indymedia presents one view of the events it covers, a left wing anarchist view and that is not going to change.
I do not suppose George W Bush is going to join the Communist party of America or Jacque Chirac take a place on the English Speaking Union either so my advice would be to forget about Indymedia and let it disapear into the same black hole as the Soviet Union and the British Union of Facists.
Does rank antisemitism or support for Islamic terrorism and misogny count as a "left wing anarchist view"?
If not, how did it also become so prevalent on the newswire, and why did the left-wing anarchists sit back and do nothing about it?
Choose n handle for yourself before posting so people can reply. Click "other" instead of "anonymous"
As a Cuban American I have tried to raise this on Indybay but it is always censored.
Indymedia has a blind spot when it comes to Cuba and Castro
One of those key phrases that means something different on Indymedia than it does elsewhere. In the Indymedia sphere, more often than not, "it seems I've struck a nerve" means "I've said something so horrendously, Cro-Magnon stupid that more people than usual are making the effort to slap me down for it, although I'm going to delude myself into thinking this is actually a sign of intellectual superiority."
Kinda like "cui bono" on Indymedia usually means "I blame the Jews."
Here they have the opportunity to experience free and open discussion, without censorship of dissenting views.
It's something they won't find on any Indymedia site.
Jews not responsible for all the world's problems
CIA not running secret New World Order analysis of posts
9/11 not being discussed in terms of ray guns, holograms and cover ups
No marches being organised so that groups can move from point A to point B for no real reason
No reports of "actions" where various bored Middle Class students patronise others who they assume are not well informed and educated about world events.
No hatred, no condemnation, no ridicule of others because they have opposing viewpoints.
No pandering to Muslim fundamentalism with its message of gay hate and violence to women
There's nothing for them here expect people discussing how what could have been a major step forward in news gathering and media facilitation for the disadvanted has been corrupted by a few individuals seeking to prevent alternative views and opinions from being heard.
There is a bigger issue as far as I am concerned, the campaign by some Indymedia sites to hide the growing links between the Far Right and Islamic extremists with their shared hatred of Jews.
Here is a good example from the British Indymedia site,
David Irvine - a far right apologist for Nazism and a Holocaust denier with convictions in Europe for his vile views has been receiving support from the “moderate Muslim” organisation, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee. A story of interest to anyone who reads Indymedia I would have thought but no, instead it was hidden by ISM activist Roy Bard (aka ftp or FreeThePeeps).
Should Indymedia readers not know about this and if so why not ?
You missed the most significant part of the equation. And just why do they hide it? Because there's not one atom of difference in a far Right winger and a far Left winger.
A Nazi is a skinhead is an Unbathed terrorist fellator is a Jew hater....
ISM member and Jewish obsessive Roy Bard.
Anyone with some time to spare may wish to take a look at other articles hidden by Bard - I'm sure his interest in Israel is just down to concern for the Palestinian people
the bigger question is why does a media outlet with a stated policy of open publishing and with a mission statement encouring others to Be The News allow people with such views to be editors of the site ?
Websites will always attract Nazis and other Jew haters but the issue is how do they control the contributions made. Indymedia has editorial control but doesn't use it to stop this type of post. I think this is a deliberate policy.
You must be thinking of SF, where a certain "editor" wears it's terrorist alignment on it's sleeve.
Zionists love to sign other people's names. That's the kind of people they are, fundamentally dishonest. False flag ops are their specialty. We cannot help but wonder how many atrocities they have signed Osama bin Laden's name to, or Hamas' or the PLO's or Hizbullah's.
Indeed he appears to be an ossified man who died in 1937.