portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article portland metro

forest defense

tree sitter dies

A 22 year old woman died falling from a tree sit in the eagle creek timber sale last night.
A 22 year old woman fell from a tree at the eagle creek timber sale last night, and died from the injuries she recieved.

Why do posts about this tragic event get edited to the 'hidden' posts section of the portland imc website?
Can someone please explain this?
NO! 13.Apr.2002 15:22

heckNOOOOO!

will there be a memorial for this fallen earth warrior?
when?
what was her name?
how did she fall?

what's going on? 13.Apr.2002 15:24

.

take a look at  http://portland.indymedia.org/display.php3?group=webcast&led=y&sort=&rate=none&filter=hidden

Here you can see several hidden posts regarding this story. Why?

. 13.Apr.2002 15:43

.

notice there is one post called "Tragedy at Eagle Creek" with an author "CFA" the rest who knows who wrote it.

An answer for gnome 13.Apr.2002 16:14

indymedia reporter

It was requested by CFA that we hide the post. The family had not been notified yet. This was not a statement made by CFA. There is however a CFA statement on the wire now.

hidden posts 13.Apr.2002 16:18

deva

portland editorial hid the posts by request because the family had not yet been notified.

please do continue to question anytime a post is hidden. any action should be able to withstand the light of day.

honour to the fallen. . .

I miss you already 13.Apr.2002 18:23

Hank

Her name is Beth O'Brian. A lot of people around Portland knew her as "Horhound". There will be a candlelight vigil to pay respects at sunset tommorrow (Sunday) at Mt. Tabor. She was an incredible, caring, passionate person, someone who dedicated her life to fighting for justice and living life on her terms, and we miss her dearly.

These explanations make no sense 13.Apr.2002 18:30

.

You removed items from the newswire because Cascadia Forest Alliance asked you to?

Who else has this kind of sway over the editorial group?

Because the family had not yet been notified? There were no names listed in the earlier, hidden posts. One often sees on the news "such and such has happened, the names of those involved are being held back pending notification of family." Instead, you all simply removed the event itself from the news. Again, there were no names listed. This excuse makes no sense.

Because you didn't know who wrote the original posts? Isn't that the point of open publishing? The author can choose to identify him/her self, can lie about his/her identity, or can enter no identity at all.

Because hiding posts so that some official mouthpiece organization can have the "official" say? So much for independent media and so much for open publishing. Hiding these posts was in direct contradiction of your stated editorial guidelines, and the excuses for why it happened are lame. Shame.

imc editorial - follow your guidelines! 13.Apr.2002 18:58

made up name

I agree with the above author, Portland Indymedia has a well-crafted editorial policy (view the policy at  http://portland.indymedia.org/about.php3 ) that was not followed here.

The posts about the tragic death at Eagle Creek do not fit into your criteria for hiding posts, not by any stretch of the imagination. I believe that the editorial group owes the larger indymedia community an apology for dramatically exceeding its authority, and a promise not to do it again.

It is also worth noting that this story appeared on the mainstream news media on Friday night, before the first hidden post (thus the information was already out there) and nearly a full day before the "official" CFA press release made it to the site.

IMC Editorial folks, this is not your private play toy! Will you apologize for not respecting the rules? Will you unhide the improperly hidden posts?

explanation 13.Apr.2002 19:01

explanation

As someone who asked for the posts to be hidden I just wanted to offer an explanation that you may disagree with. When the news went out that someone died we were unable to release the name until the family had been notified. Thousands of people have been through Eagle Creek. That means that everyone was calling right through the night to see if it was their friend or family member who had been killed. We wanted in part to prevent folks around the US unnecesarily worrying cause they knew someone who was a forest activist. Additionally, everyone was calling to ask, which tied up our phone lines, kept us from being able to mourn, process, or notify her friends and family so that her name could be released. Rather than the "official mouthpiece" censoring articles or trying to control 'spin' - the community of those mourning her here asked for the privacy of this situation to be respected overnight so that we could mourn and her family and friends could be notified.

controlling the news 13.Apr.2002 19:25

.

It does make sense why the CFA folks might ask for this to be removed. It makes no sense whatsoever why PDX_IMC-Editorial staff went along and removed it, against all of their stated policies.

This information was already out on the mainstream media. I saw it on the local news Friday evening, and on the AP newswire. Portland Indymedia was the one place I couldn't read about it. Sad.

I do not apologize for hiding the posts 13.Apr.2002 23:58

Jeremy David Stolen fellowtraveler@riseup.net

I'm the one who re-hid the original post, and hid the follow-ups. Here's my thoughts on this subject.

First, when in doubt, I think it is best for the editorial group to hide a post, and alert the others in the group that it's been done so everyone can discuss it, and decide what to do. This has happened before, in fact. Posts are never deleted and can always be "unhidden" again.

Secondly, our editorial policy, like everything about indymedia, is a work-in-progress. That's why it has rec'd additions over time, such as removing a post that "interferes with the functionality of the newswire". That's something new that came up that needed to be added. (As it turns out, it's great that we added that; palestine indymedia was getting attacked by way of posts that had hidden commands in them that were f'ing up the site. While I believe that hacking, too, is a form of free speech in the broadest sense of the concept, it is something we need get rid of if it is harming the site.)

So -- why this assenting to CFA, without any real precedent? I guess it felt like the right thing to do. The new code of ethics that the reporting committee has adopted -- while it has no official effect on editorial policy -- contains a bit about having sensitivity for one's subjects, and I guess that was rattling around in my brain.

That other media sources were reporting it is immaterial to me, personally. If the corporate big boys were doing the right thing, there'd be no need for indymedia. When Tre Arrow fell out of the tree last October those of us who were working on the feature did not use his name, even though the Oregonian had done so, because the CFA folks didn't really want it shared right away; they weren't sure, I think, if Tre was "out" as Tre yet at that point. I still feel like that was the right thing to do.

That was a different situation since no posts were hidden -- we were just choosing what to say and what not to say. We have done that before with other details too. We're not news media people -- we're activists. Sometimes we don't publish stuff if we think it might hurt someone. But here I am just talking about the features section, not the newswire. I think this is the first time we've hidden a newswire post in this way.

But I don't consider this situation to be censorship. I consider it to be sensitivity. I am not going to apologize to anyone for this. It is not always easy to see what the right thing is to do in the heat of the moment, but I regret nothing. This was an unusual situation, and now, more importantly, we have a chance to discuss the issue in depth and decide if we need to amend our policy to allow or forbid actions like this in the future.

Anyone can join the editorial committee and become part of this and other decisions. Come to meetings at the Red and Black on Saturdays at 4:00 p.m., and/or join the listserve at: http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-portland-editorial

And opinions on the newswire are always taken into account, too.


Snipehunt 14.Apr.2002 00:39

uuu

I can't believe this is what you people worry about. Someone dies and you mount your high-horse about a post being TEMPORARILY HIDDEN at the request of the organization with whom she worked. Then you browbeat people who probably do more in a day than you do in a month, tossing off overblown accusations like confetti. Now instead of mourning the death of a dedicated activist, IMC and newswire crows can spend more valuable time arguing over trivialities and semantics. YOU SHOULD BE FUCKING ASHAMED.

re: made up name 14.Apr.2002 01:28

deva

<<<The posts about the tragic death at Eagle Creek do not fit into your criteria for hiding posts, not by any stretch of the imagination. I believe that the editorial group owes the larger indymedia community an apology for dramatically exceeding its authority, and a promise not to do it again. >>>

dramatically exceeding its authority? the editorial group, and through it the people who give their time to portland indymedia sets its own aganda, and answers to no authority. . .we can remove any damn post we feel like, whenever the hell we feel like it. . .the fact that we have an editorial policy is our own commitment to keeping an essentially hands off policy, and editorial has stuck to it admirably. There are only a handful of hidden posts (besides duplicates) out of over 9200

<<<It is also worth noting that this story appeared on the mainstream news media on Friday night, before the first hidden post (thus the information was already out there) and nearly a full day before the "official" CFA press release made it to the site.>>>

<<<IMC Editorial folks, this is not your private play toy! Will you apologize for not respecting the rules? Will you unhide the improperly hidden posts? >>>

fuck off with your talk of rules. . .the people active in indymedia set their own guidelines and they are just that. . .guidelines, not some anal regimented rule that must be followed regardless or people will be flayed. . .it is a judgement call for a unique situation to which the 'rules' did not apply. Jeremy expressed it quite well. . .if you think the wrong decision was made, fine. . .perhaps a thoughtful discussion will cause a different decision to be made next time. . .we were ourselves unsure and went back and forth

however, even if the decision was a stupid one, if a friend of yours acted stupidly when faced with the death of a person they knew, would you start chewing their ass off?

Whether the post was hidden or not means jack shit compared to the life that was just lost. But all you see is red because YOUR post was hidden. i call that rather insensitive, selfish even.

What an Abusive Crock of Shit Deva 14.Apr.2002 07:49

Akasha Cascadia outdc@efn.org

<<<Whether the post was hidden or not means jack shit compared to the life that was just lost. But all you see is red because YOUR post was hidden. i call that rather insensitive, selfish even.>>>

on a little EGO TRIP....?

I made the Post about
"by tree sitter dies in fall from platform 2:10pm Sat Apr 13 '02"
And it was a simple link to the AP Wire Story already carried by assholes like CNN, RG, Oregonian, USAToday.

ACTIVISTS NEED DATA SISTER!
It's more important than any spin
or your goddamn feelings.

Ego trip? 14.Apr.2002 09:09

uuu

How about people that focus not on the death of a comrade in trees but on the temporary hiding of a post? If you're not working for the government you might as well be.

Disagree with editorial, get called a cop 14.Apr.2002 09:44

made up name

> please do continue to question anytime a post is hidden.
> any action should be able to withstand the light of day.

Why the attacks on those questioning this decision? To disagree with imc editorial folks is not to be a cop or government agent! To be pissed about postings improperly removed from the newswire is not disrespect to fallen comrades! One can mourn the tragic loss of life and SIMULTANEOUSLY oppose the decisions of the editorial folks. Sorry if some people can't see that.

come down off your high horses pdx indy 14.Apr.2002 11:30

truth girl

it is one thing to justify your reasons for hiding a post; it is quite another to sit on your high horses and shout down to those who are questioning your motives, with obscenities and abusive comments. this is unacceptable and irresponsible behavior, shocking, really.

seems you are guilty of doing what you claim to abhor "controlling the media"...

Not representing IMC 14.Apr.2002 12:35

.

I didn't say you were a cop. I said you might as well be. Your abrasive comments are by no means constructive.

Again, not on behalf of IMC, you all make me sick. You are abusive and small-minded. The way you hide that is by getting to the accusation well first ... and by unrelentlessly dipping into it. Whatever. Go for it.

hug? 14.Apr.2002 15:06

Gabe

folks, I think we need to have a group hug.

posts 14.Apr.2002 15:51

deva

re: Akasha

my reply was specific to someone else, and had nothing to do with your post

re: made up name

i see no attacks on those who question the decision. . .i make a hard reply to the vitriolic manner in which they are put forth

re: truth girl

speaking for myself . . . if people who work hard for the cause of indymedia, did make an error, so fucking what!? if someone wants to see that as their opportunity to come swinging a sword, i'll swing one right back.

i am always ready for a respectful dialog on the decisions made, and ready to change them if someone points to a better path. . .however, i, and everyone else contributing to indymedia have no obligation whatsoever to take shit from anyone.

if you want to be the customer who is always right, go down and yell at the cashier at the local supermarket. they are threatened with dismissal if they dont take it.

i am a participant here and can voice my opinions and feelings just as freely as anyone

calling that "controling the media" is bullshit, and very far from the truth. just look at the fact that this post is here, and i assure you, nobody in editorial would ever hide it.

simmer down man 15.Apr.2002 08:17

truth girl

so you feel justified in 'throwing shit' because some readers demanded to know the truth!?

>if you want to be the customer who is always right, go >down and yell at the cashier at the local supermarket. >they are threatened with dismissal if they dont take it.

Isn't his what you were doing? weren't you the one yelling at the customers?

no one is suggesting that you cannot voice your opinions, but for someone who encouraged others to continue questioning the hiding of posts -

> please do continue to question anytime a post is hidden.
> any action should be able to withstand the light of day -
and then turn around and give them hell for asking, well, it's just a bit incongruent, don't you think?

yelling and cursing at those readers deamnding to know the truth is in essence, a sort of control. speaking to others in this way is abusive, therefore, controlling.

What a fine memorial we've come up with. 15.Apr.2002 12:28

Po po@ciphermonkeys.org

Boy, nothing makes me more proud of our so-called activist community when we can come up with a eulogy like this for a fallen friend and comrade.

I did not know Horhound. But I heard a lot about her through friends and acquaintences.

I'm sorry I won't get to meet her.


How about sparing a little dignity?

-po


re: truth girl 15.Apr.2002 20:53

deva

<<<so you feel justified in 'throwing shit' because some readers demanded to know the truth!?>>>

We announced exactly what we did and why, before anyone demanded anything. . .nothing was/is hidden about the process that led to the decision to hide posts. . .

The processes for all editorial decisions are open and public, and anyone, including you, can come participate as you feel inclined.

If you care to search the archives, you can go read all the emails we sent back and forth to arrive at the 'decision'

i put decision in qoutes because it was hidden once, then unhidden, then again hidden as we grappled with the situation.

Generally our approach has been to hide something first, then discuss it, if for example, the reason for hiding it would be lost by leaving it up there for a day while we decided. (as was the case here) If there is no pressing reason to take it down, then we will leave it up until a decision is taken.

If the consensus of the still ongoing discussion is to not hide such a post in the future, then that is likely what will happen, allowing of course for each situation to have its own uniqueness. . .

As for the rest of your post,

<<<yelling and cursing at those readers deamnding to know the truth is in essence, a sort of control. speaking to others in this way is abusive, therefore, controlling. >>>

Nobody was demanding truth, as the truth was already clearly stated. . .some people did not like our decision, that has nothing to do with truth

You refuse to hear the reason i became mad. It has nothing to do with some individuals not liking the decision to hide the posts. . .editorial itself was unsure, and i myself have no particularly strong opinion, which way we should have gone. i would have accepted either way though i leaned towards fulfilling CFA's request.

Now suppose we were in a meeting and someone walks in and starts demanding apologies, accusing us of abusing power and trying to intimidate and coerce into their policy, before saying anything else?. . .i may well yell at them for their poor behavior.

Frankly, editorial has done a stellar job and literally agonizes over each situation as it arises. Editorial is well deserving of benefit of the doubt, based on its track record, some benefit of the doubt, at least until there has been an opportunity to speak, and/or editorial displays an unwillingness to discuss an issue and be open to change. this is not what happened at all. . .and you will hardly find any bunch more willing to work hard to accomodate everyone as much as is possible.

i'll state it again right here, if someone leads first with a fist, they may well get a fist in return. This is not the first time people have approached editorial with guns blazing and i do not feel that charitable to take that crap anymore.

reply to deva 17.Apr.2002 10:39

truth boy

truth girl said:

"no one is suggesting that you cannot voice your opinions, but for someone who encouraged others to continue questioning the hiding of posts, and then turn around and give them hell for asking, well, it's just a bit incongruent, don't you think? yelling and cursing at those readers deamnding to know the truth is in essence, a sort of control. speaking to others in this way is abusive, therefore, controlling."

I agree that your obscenity-laced response really surprised me. Especially after you said, "please do continue to question anytime a post is hidden. any action should be able to withstand the light of day."

First you invited debate, but then jumped on someone who *did* debate with a viciousness that discouraged such debate. As an indymedia person, I feel it would've been better if you would have toned down the language of your response for the purpose of continuing to encourage healthy debate.

I'm certainly the last person to say "we shouldn't swear" and I won't say it. but those words can inject a poison into an atmosphere that makes it more difficult to breathe. I agree with truth girl that it was counter-productive to do so in this instance.

And if you got anything else to say, Deva -- we need to take it outside!