portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article portland metro

actions & protests | imperialism & war | media criticism

NICK BUDNICK'S RESPONSE

WW reporter responds to criticisms.
Some people posting to this site said they'd like to hear my response to the criticisms of my article. The criticisms were numerous; here is my attempt to correct factual inaccuracies:

•Deva in his "examination" post, says he "encouraged Nick not to focus on me so much ...Nick refused to acknowledge that i am not a spokesperson for indymedia and neither is spArk. He did not mention that i asked not to have my picture taken and would have preferred they not use my picture (again) because it gives the impression that i am a spokesperson for indymedia. "

To me this complaint is a red herring: Is Deva suggesting that story subjects should dictate how the story is written? Is he saying they should have the power to tell people they cannot run photos taken in public places? I have heard Deva make arguments to the contrary, so I doubt he really believes that. The fact is that Deva and spArk have been the key figures in making Indymedia what it is today. Focusing on them is not unfair regardless of their wishes,. That's why Rearguard ran a three-part series on Deva and Indymedia last fall: he is a key figure. Indeed, in his e-mail to me he seemed to accept the role of spokesperson, saying: "I do end up, with resistance on my part, acting as a spokesperson of sorts."

•Also, in making his argument, there is an inaccuracy: he claims I disregarded his request to not run the photo we had of him; in reality, he specifically said it was OK. On, April 17, while responding to a request to get a photo of him and spArk together, he wrote: "I do not object to you using the individual photo you have of me, but having a photo of both spArk and I together presents a different picture and does feel to me like it is excluding other contributors and not recognizing their valuable contributions."

•Later in Deva's posting, he denies that Indymedia has made compromises, but then, paradoxically, he admits that there has been more censorship than in the past. He blames that on increasing volume of posts and a need to remove "spam." But then he admits that some posts were taken off that did not need to -- in other words, because they were not "spam." Is this not a compromise aggravated by volume of posts?

He wrote: "Over the past month, there were 9000 posts (articles, comments and photos) to the site. Along with writing accounts, putting up features, and being on the streets covering those hectic weeks, people had the task of attending to the increased amount of spam to the site. Decisions were made with less time, with more fatigue and no doubt some posts need not have been hidden."

The fact is, the people who decide what material is removed from the site and which becomes central features are employing the same filtering role and bias that editors do at newspapers. This is a necessary part of making sense of the world given the constant stream of information in this world; however, if it is not a compromise of Indymedia's stated ethos I don't know what is.

•As far as censorship, and my statement that there are no standards or accountability, Deva writes "This is false as well. There are standards and there is acountability."
In at least one response that he has posted to people complaining about their posts being removed, he has stated that he doesn't know who took them down or why, but it should not have happened. It is undisputed that there is no record of who took down which posts and why. If that is his definition of accountability, then that surprises me. As he wrote on April 20 in an e-mail to me: "It has been agreed upon that people can hide posts at their discretion according to the policy. Often a person doing so bounces it off of someone else, but that is not required."

There is indeed a standard — the anti-censorship policy of Indymedia — but it is clear that this is now being violated routinely. When asked about what policy explained how anti-violence posts were removed in the wake of my March 26 article, both m2 and Deva responded, and neither made the claim that 1) they were removed in accordance to the specific policy, or 2) that it was the result of a mysterious technical glitch.
To the contrary, Deva wrote to me in tacit defense of the move, saying that it may not have been proper, but at least those with "less bile" were left up. Meanwhile, the threats themselves were left up, which is why Sheri Herndon of global Indymedia was surprised. Threats of violence are not "bile?"

•Deva also writes that the Day X video is not manipulative, saying "What he may not realize is that there was no footage from the Steel Bridge available to the editors of the piece."
Actually, there was plenty of footage played on all the TV stations, and there were also descriptions of it posted on Indymedia by people responding to various attempts to claim it did not happen. So to instead run an alleged first-hand account that is diametrically opposed to what actually happened — the reality that was reflected in the TV footage, Indymedia posts, and a published account — strikes me as selective, to say the least.

•Deva writes that: "Nick of course can post his article to indymedia, but i cannot print my reply in the WW. It is obvious which venue is open and which is not."

Like all traditional media, WW is not as open as Indymedia. However, in an earlier e-mail exchange, when Deva accused me of misquoting him (I quoted from a tape-recorded interview), and, later, of misparaphrasing it (he said "should not be allowed;" the paraphrase said "banned), I encouraged him to write a letter to the editor and we would run it. That offer remains open.

•Deva and others have suggested that there is no issue concerning democracy at Indymedia.
As recently as six months ago, there was enough of an issue that global indymedia urged Portland to undergo a "recertification" process to ensure PDX still complied with the guiding Indymedia principles.
In the e-mail, from global's Jay, he cites questions others raised as to whether the vote dissolving the collective sparked by Deva and spArk was truly representative, and also says, "Especially disconcerting is the idea that several people feel as if they have been forced out of the collective." This recertification process never happened.

 http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-portland/2002-October/002690.html

In other words, I did not fabricate this issue.

•Later in Catwoman's first post, she apparently asks me to not report what I myself saw on the Steel Bridge in person from 12 to 15 feet away: "And we have "journalists" like nick buttlick to thank for helping to manufacture consent for more police violence in this city."
In reality, the police crackdown began the very next day after the Steel Bridge-- well before my article came out. We have since written two articles on the backlash, and one of them resulted in Alan Graf getting a key plaintiff (the red-haired woman sprayed by Hanousek and Kruger) for his lawsuit, after she saw herself in WW.

•In her second post, Catwoman writes that "And the reason a call went out to block the corporate media was not, as nick said, "to protect those who might break the law." Once again, Nick throws in useless assumptions when facts would work better."

Contrary to Catwoman's claim, this was not my "useless assumption." This in fact was was reason #1 cited in the Indymedia feature article entitled "Block the Corporate Media." Instead of using the words "break the law," it says "illegal activity," "arrestable situations," and "compromising situations."
Specifically, the #1 reason given to block the media was:

"1.They cannot be trusted not to work with the cops
In arrestable situations like we will be facing, the corporate media have no problem with broadcasting or otherwise reporting on illegal activity in a way that will put us at risk. As activists, we should know better than to film or photograph people in compromising situations, or to not make the footage public if we do. (At least, we all oughta know this by now.) The people who are taking risks to actively resist the imperialist power of the U.S. need our support and one vital way of doing that is to protect their identities. The corporate media doesn't care about this concept. Thus, they are dangerous to us."

•Catwoman also writes that "Just like nick's comment about the police use of chemcial weapons on "innocent bystanders" on the steel bridge -- he blames "black-clad protesters" for that, not the police."
According to longtime Portland activists, the charge on cops violated Portland's unwritten but longstanding protest rules of etiquette, because they specifically endangered innocent bystanders who had no forewarning of their intentions, and the police response was totally predictable.
Since the charge was clearly premeditated, and the backlash entirely predictable, I am confused by Catwoman's argument that those who did this bear no responsibility for what happened in response to their actions.

•She also writes that "On another note, nick "reports" that the PDX PD is monitoring the site. Not that we didn't know this, but isn't that a violation of statues that prohibit the police from spying on and/or keeping files on citizens except when an actual criminal investigation is taking place? Why doesn't nick do an "investigative" piece on that?"

Actually, no: websurfing a public site is as legal for police as it is you or I. They just can't keep files of non-criminal postings. If they find evidence of proposed criminal activity in postings then they can in fact keep a file of that criminal proposal. This is not illegal in the slightest.

•Later, in the posting "were you there?" someone calling themself "I didn't think so" writes: "They were not "a few traffic cops" as Budnick reports. Rather, they were many cops who were well armed with night sticks, and who used them very liberally on the crowd, just as they used their pepper spray to attack a deaf man."

To double-check that my notes and recollections were accurate, before printing my March 26 article I reviewed video from the event and still photos. It is a fact that there were only three traffic cops there when the charge occurred. The ones who came soon thereafter -- after the charge-- were reinforcements. I reported that correctly. I also reported as clearcut misconduct the spraying of the apparent deaf man, as well as the name of the cop who sprayed him. If Indymedia wanted to be constructive, it would ask people who witnessed this to call the Independent Police Review board, which appears to have opened an investigation based on my article.

•Later logos writes,
"The article brought up the discussion that occured regarding Andy Rice and the feelings of some members that there was a power grab. Since you went through the time to find these articles, how is it that you missed the personal threats from Mr. Rice, the attempt of members to proclaim themselves into power positions that did not exist, and other methods of coercion, intimidation, and conflict. If you check the archives it is all there."

In reality, there was never any evidence posted of Rice making threats that I could see. Furthermore, his posting was representative of several people's complaints. The ad hominem attack on him evades this issue.

•Logos also writes: "You left out that nearly all mistakes in hidden and missing articles are due to technical errors cause by the old software pdx imc is using. If someone finds that there is hidden posts that shouldn't be & can't
otherwise explain it, the password is changed and a search is on to find
who it is that is violating the site."

In their responses to me about the removal of the posts, both m2 and Deva said nothing about a technical glitch. Rather, they attributed it to a discretionary power to remove posts by those who have passwords.

•Later, in "The Good Things the Papers Do," CatWoman writes "Yes. Let's not forget. Let's remember how Nick and others at WW, not to mention the much less subtle corporate sycophants at the wOregonian, work day and night to manufacture consent for the status quo that's grinding us down.....Because WW is no "alternative." It's as bought by corporate interests as the bOregonian, it's just more devious about it."

Indeed, to outsmart those who read Noam Chomsky, we've been devious in our attempts to manufacture consent, including with Indymedia's favorite whipping boy, the Portland Business Alliance:
 http://www.wweek.com/flatfiles/News3620.lasso
and its predecessor the Association for Portland Progress:
 http://www.wweek.com/html/leada121599.html
and the police:
 http://www.wweek.com/flatfiles/allstories.lasso?xxin=3109
and our coverage of CFA type issues
 http://www.wweek.com/flatfiles/allstories.lasso?xxin=2519
This is just a small sampling.

•Later, Gringo Stars critiques our chart of news stories as covered in the mainstream news, saying:
"Next time, Nick; concentrate on news CONTENT when comparing different news outlets. What, precisely, does a story say about what is happening? In whose terms and with whose words are the events being described? Who benefits the most from each different perspective?"

This is a valid point: a more detailed examination would be appropriate if the article intended to repeat the focus of our two or three earlier articles in recent weeks concerning the slant of the media we've been subjected to. Instead, we ran a chart showing that concern over the media is justified. The chart, in showing the Oregonian made no mention of three out of six important issues relevant to the invasion of Iraq, achieved that aim.

•Later on, an anonymous poster claimed that his words, "See you on the streets. And I'll see you long before you ever see me." were not intended as a threat. He may not have meant to carry it out, but several posters interpreted it as a threat and it was discussed as such.

 http://portland.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=53271&group=webcast

As the thread shows, it was perceived as a threat by many people aside from myself. A second, later posting, about breaking reporters' fingers and such, was unmistakable.

•I think Deva has correctly noted a significant advantage the Indymedia concept has over traditional media: many people can post, thereby providing different points of view in an attempt to get at the truth.
It seems to me that advantage is diluted when people make false claims and are not challenged on them. It also is diluted when people who disagree with the editors' view but have legitimate points to raise are deleted.

ssdfasfsda 28.Apr.2003 14:02

asdfdsafasdf

"It seems to me that advantage is diluted when people make false claims and are not challenged on them. It also is diluted when people who disagree with the editors' view but have legitimate points to raise are deleted."

3rd paragraph
"The threat came from an unexpected source: an anonymous posting on portland.indymedia.org, a website that is the hub of much of Portland's anti-war activism and a bulletin board for the city's do-gooder communities."

(the threat, the victim)
(do-gooders vs. the evil-doers?)


from  http://www.savethemales.ca/000012.html

I think Dr. Henry Makow is correct when he saids the following

"Victims don't care about objective truth either. They feel their suffering gives them the right to manipulate the truth or even deny that it exists."

"Victims are also passive aggressive. ... Before they complained about persecution. Now they are the persecutor."

"Victim hood transforms people. They become motivated, self-righteous and regimented. A complex world is reduced to black and white: Good against Evil, us against them. Morally and intellectually, they become zombies."


"The world is like Orwell's 1984. Black is white and white is black, according to Big Brother and Newsweek."


Nick, you've lost all your creditability. ( a long time ago)

nick is a turd and a crybaby 28.Apr.2003 14:22

looks down on nick as an inferior being

nick is a turd and a crybaby. he should try to be man enough to let this go and stop whining. somebody call nine, wah, wah.

suggestion for WW media blackout 28.Apr.2003 14:33

alex

I'd suggest that since "little Nick" apparently has an unwillingness to deal with activists in a respectful way, WW be cut out of all media contact lists for activist groups.

When WW wants to get a better writer to cover local politics (bring back Dawdy for instance) they could again be considered a worthwhile media contact.

Until then, we can make sure WW is completely devoid of locat activist news. At least Phil Busse has a sense of humor.

Good for you Nick 28.Apr.2003 14:37

---

Glad to see you out there stumping for the status quo. I hope they pay you well. It just galls you that Indymedia is working outside the normal hierarchical structure, doesn't it?

As for Andy Rice -- who I notice you listed as Andy Smith ... does the willie week employ fact checkers? -- Most people dig further into their morning cereal than you did for the facts. And, as an unpaid volunteer who takes the incursion of the police state seriously, it's neither my job nor my priority to provide Your Irrelevance with those facts. They're there if you want them.

What's really pathetic is to watch you try to revive old spats between Portland Indymedia and well-meaning people who just couldn't get old power structures out of their system -- and were willing to see many people suffer to stroke their own egos. But I guess they pay you to waste peoples' time. Good boy!

Good piece 28.Apr.2003 14:41

Joe Mama

I thought Nick's piece was quite equitable. If anything, it underplayed the number of quacks and bozos who hang out on this site.

Joe Mama 28.Apr.2003 14:45

pfft

If you want a club for quacks and bozos, go back to your troll site.

Right... 28.Apr.2003 15:17

Joe Mama

Right... I forgot: if you dare step out of line and suggest that some of the people who post here are quacks, you are a troll and aren't welcome here, eh?

Heaven forbid that people on the independant media website think independently. I gotta learn to walk that "everyone is deluded but us" line...

Depressing decline of intelligent debate 28.Apr.2003 15:23

A Concerned Human Being

It's truly sad that people are so afraid of differing points of view that they are unwilling to give any attempt at a reasoned response to an intelligently made point. I think Nick did a very good job in bringing up points to continue the debate. If you disagree with the points, why not do what he did and articulate your perspective in a reasoned response? I'm truly saddened with the attitude of so many people on this site. I want no part in your "revolution" if this is the way your society would be. The status quo almost seems desirable in contrast. Let's spread intelligence and peace rather than unquestioned hostility. C'mon people...you're creating enemies rather than allies. Eventually there will just be a handful of you "real radicals" and then who are you claiming to represent? The proletariat? The working class? Try getting out of your isolated worlds for a change and see what the "People" really think. NewsFlash: They're not on your side. We've got a lot of work to do to educate people and bring them around to believing in social justice. This will only happen with open, honest, caring, and intelligent dicussion. Thanks for your time!

redemption 28.Apr.2003 15:28

m2

nick,

just because i did not mention software glitches in my direct email to you previously, that does not mean that they do not exist. in a least a dozen comments i have posted publicly to this site, i have made reference to problems and limitations with the existing portland indymedia software. that is one of the reasons why i got involved with the technical projects here at portland indymedia. our new site will have resolved most of those problems, and we can put aside this complaint about "deleted" postings. in the past, inappropriate postings have been put in the compost bin, not deleted, plain and simple--anything else is due to technical anomalies, which increase during peak use times. the new site also has no delete capability and there will be a new link on the main page to make it easier for people to find all the hate-filled ignorant filth they want in the compost bin.

when you wrote your "rubbish!" piece in december, you earned a few points in my eyes for a somewhat original and gutsy move. your recent "corporate media is the disease" article and response above have forced me to retract those points for complaining and sensationalizing. i like to think that we are all doing the best we know how with the tools we have available to us. not that my opinion matters to you, but i am always open to giving you a chance to redeem yourself as someone who is part of the "solution" and not just one more addition to the "problem". like missouri's state motto: "show me".

Try opening you own mind 28.Apr.2003 15:31

huh?

Nick Budnick had a chance to present a well-reasoned article and declined to do so. If your opinion differs on that point, so be it. But, it remains only your opinion. Spending further time engaging in a so-called well-reasoned debate with people like him is literally casting pearls before swine. I hope you find some way to ameliorate your depression that doesn't involve judging people from your nice and comfortable high horse, with no regard for context.

Thank you for your time.

Intelligent Debate 28.Apr.2003 15:44

ahimsa

Ditto what Concerned Human said. Thank you.

pearls and swine 28.Apr.2003 15:52

inferior to me

what is with this attitude
i'm superior to person A
person B is an idiot
person C is scum
there are enuf insults to
use the alphabet a hundred times over

passes over an ego deflator
to those who need it

Censorship or editing? 28.Apr.2003 15:57

ahimsa

I do not know who Salaud is, but here is that person's response to my query about if anti-violent criticisms of the alleged threats against Mr. Budnick were indeed hidden:



"I never really saw those comments. But, with a little digging anyone should be able to find them....since they are on the site still. I have no idea who hid them....chances are about 1 in 30 that either spArk or Deva did the hiding.

"The editorial policy is not a rule book. Autonomous individuals make editorial decisions as part of a collective process. If I hide an article someone can come behind me and un-hide it."


There are two possibilities. Either this is the truly open, diverse forum that it claims to be, in which case hiding posts should only happen STRICTLY within the stated policy. In other words, posts by trolls, those with "bile" etc. should be left. Or, it is a somewhat open forum with a somewhat open (but definite) political bias, and some editing happens. I have no problem with the latter, as long as the site does not proclaim itself as the former.

Some have made the point that hiding (or composting) posts is not editing, because they are still on the site. But as a matter of fact, once hidden, they are virtually invisible, and very hard to locate. In fact, if you don't know a post has been hidden, you would never even think to lok for it.

speaking of hard-to-find hidden posts, I would really appreciate it if Nick Budnick or somebody would post a link to the posts that were allegedly hidden--the posts critical of the perceived threats.

Thanks for the forum. I am glad it's here.

Ditto what Ditto said 28.Apr.2003 15:58

I think

or not ditto what not ditto said. we should be engaging in ... um, intelligent debate. so, um, ditto.

reply 28.Apr.2003 16:49

deva

"•Deva in his "examination" post, says he "encouraged Nick not to focus on me so much ...

To me this complaint is a red herring: Is Deva suggesting that story subjects should dictate how the story is written? Is he saying they should have the power to tell people they cannot run photos taken in public places?"



you use the word dictate, I said encouraged. Encouaging you not to focus so much on me is not dictating how the story is written, it is asking you to be fair about it to represent what indymedia is. . .Encouraging you to not focus on me so much is not saying don't put any focus on the role I have played, but do give recognition to all the people who contribute. That is not alot to ask, and it would present a more accurate picture to readers of what indymedia is.




"•Also, in making his argument, there is an inaccuracy: he claims I disregarded his request to not run the photo we had of him; in reality, he specifically said it was OK."



I said you could use the picture, but that does not mean I wished you to. I explained my position on it, and left it up to you. I am disappointed that you could not see the point I was making and do indymedia justice. That is all. I am disappointed in your article, and so are many other people.



"•Later in Deva's posting, he denies that Indymedia has made compromises, but then, paradoxically, he admits that there has been more censorship than in the past. He blames that on increasing volume of posts and a need to remove "spam." But then he admits that some posts were taken off that did not need to -- in other words, because they were not "spam." Is this not a compromise aggravated by volume of posts?"


What you call compromises, I call responding intelligently to changing circumstances. Portland indymedia has done that well. The site is flourishing and more and more people are feeling empowered to take action.



"The fact is, the people who decide what material is removed from the site and which becomes central features are employing the same filtering role and bias that editors do at newspapers.



The level of openness of this site is so ridiculously broader than corporate/commercial media. You trying to equalize the two is laughable.




•As far as censorship, and my statement that there are no standards or accountability, Deva writes "This is false as well. There are standards and there is acountability."
In at least one response that he has posted to people complaining about their posts being removed, he has stated that he doesn't know who took them down or why..."


Just because I do not know who or why does not mean anything. You have projected upon me some role that is not mine. I don't know because I made no effort to know, nor do I intend to. I do not consider it an issue.

We all work by trust, and the person who hid a post will just say so if everyone thought it necessary to ask. The fact that it has not shows that none of the people feel it is necessary. Other than some simple discussion about making sure to read posts through and not be in a hurry, it is a non issue. Nobody is trying to silence certain views, just deal with way to much noise on the site.



"There is indeed a standard —"



good that you now admit that - it is true we have not posted the spam policy on the site, and so the editorial policy you quote on the site should have added to it the part about spam, and also the part about no commercial advertising which was consensed upon months ago and is still not up there.

There is no good excuse why it is not up there, but it was in no way hidden and the new policy was clearly announced on the site and talked about over and over on the newswire and feedback solicited from various activist organizations around town and anyone in the community who wanted to comment was invited to a meeting to do so.

Meanwhile, lets have some perspective. No original reporting of news in the community has ever been hidden. Only 'troll' posts and flame war stuff which in excess is of questionable value in the first place.

Far from compromised, the vision and understanding of what indymedia is and needs to be has been refined and improved since its inception.




"•Deva also writes that the Day X video is not manipulative, saying "What he may not realize is that there was no footage from the Steel Bridge available to the editors of the piece."
Actually, there was plenty of footage played on all the TV stations,"



I repeat for you that calls were put out repeatedly on the site and steel bridge footage was specifically asked for. You assume that because you feel what protesters did on the bridge is somehow a terrible thing, that others do too and want to hide it. Your whole point is based on this assumption.



"•Deva and others have suggested that there is no issue concerning democracy at Indymedia."


There isn't. There is an issue concerning democracy in this country. If you want to tackle a real issue, take that one up. Put your energy to real use Nick.

The meetings and contributors here in portland are diverse, with a wide range of ages, various ideologies, backgrounds and viewpoints. If the people who contribute were all of the same mind, and people were saying the meetings aren't open to people dressed differently or who had regular jobs etc there might be some concern. However, over the past 6 months, the indymedia meetings have repeatedly been characterized as open, effective, welcoming, friendly, invigorating and so on. This is a mature and diverse collection of people ranging from hardcore DIY'ers to corporate employees to family people to social workers and so on (still working on racial diversity). You are barking up the wrong tree Nick.

The Bourgeous Way 28.Apr.2003 17:05

Just Some Working Class Trash

In response to:
"Eventually there will just be a handful of you "real radicals" and then who are you claiming to represent? The Proletariat? The Working class? Try getting out of your isolated worlds for a change and see what the people really think."

Apparently working class folks aren't important/sophisticated enough for Concerned Human Being. Not all of us are going to respond in the neat and tidy manner which a 40,000 dollar education, handed down by daddy, teaches. (Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that we're all a bunch of idiots sitting around banging rocks together and yelling. We are not incapable of intellectual debate.)You seem to be the one living in an isolated world. Have you ever set one of your manicured toes in a low-income neighborhood? NEWSFLASH most of us in the working class do not trust government or corporate media. We view those institutions as meant to serve you and your superiors. The working class is becoming increasingly aware of your class' exploitations of us. Those wacky opinion polls you see on TV only represent the ruling classes(just like everything else on TV). I know VERY few poor people who would support government over their own community. You imply that representing the Working class would be a bad thing! There is CLEARLY nothing wrong with representing the working class, as we are the ones who most need it! We are also the ones who have the least to lose and are desperate enough to more likely ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING to change the system! Face it, the Bourgeous class is outnumbered! If you want to sip $5 lattes and dream about the Bourgeous replacing(or yikes, reforming) the current leadership so you can snub your nose down at us go worship Stalin. Otherwise, come get your feet dirty. Hang out with some homeless people, work a low paying job, pay rent in a low income housing building, try eating out of a dumpster to feed your family. Get some real life experience. Come see just how insensetive and consequently ignorant(don't forget classist) you sound.

Who Asked You? 28.Apr.2003 17:23

Sick of Nick

Nick Buttlick, or should I say Jeb Duncan. You already have a forum: Willamette Week. Why are you hanging around here? You have no "news" to present, and we're already tired of you. Go away.

Since you can't tear yourself away from the faux limelight you're trying to create for yourself, allow me to expound on why you bother me. You take no responsibility for the role you played, as corporate media whore, in -- as CatWoman said -- manufacturing consent for police brutality. SURE you did. You jumped right up on the bandwagon with the rest of the corporate hacks in expressing your brown-nosing admiration for the "leniency" of the police in the wake of their terrible and unconstitutional assault.

You use the same pathetic tactics we have grown to know from corporate media. In short, you quote "unnamed sources" to coroborate your bull, you misrepresent the people you feature in your poorly written articles, and you play to the money.

More to the point, what you spew is not news. You are no investigative journalist, you are merely an info-tainment plebe. And not a very good one, either. Why not do a little digging, Nick? Why not provide some context in your stories? Why not talk to the black bloc, or to someone other than the mainstream liberals you cater to? Why not look at the history of police violence in this city -- it stretches back a long, long way -- to help you understand why the bloc might have been prepared for violence? Why not fill the gaps in your understanding before scrawling your silly stream of unconsciousness onto the pages of a newspaper?

Oh. Before you start composing any reply to this, allow me to point out that these are merely rhetorical questions. I'm not really interested in "what makes Navin Johnson tick." Any more "responses" from you and I will have to censor you. No, I don't have the indymedia password, I simply won't read you any more.

Get your facts straight 28.Apr.2003 17:37

CatWoman

The WW "reporter" said:

<<According to longtime Portland activists, the charge on cops violated Portland's unwritten but longstanding protest rules of etiquette, because they specifically endangered innocent bystanders who had no forewarning of their intentions, and the police response was totally predictable. >>


To which I reply, once again, STOP BLAMING THE VICTIMS. Do they pay you for this? Are you in the police bureau pocket? The portland police are thugs. They acted like drugged lunatics fighting their own people in the streets. And you blame the people on the steel bridge for this? First of all, the police were battering people all over the city, all day and all night long. Their violence was not confined to the steel bridge, though you keep insisting it was, or at least it wouldn't have happened elsewhere except for the behavior of the protesters on the bridge.

The police acted as they did because they knew they were propping up an illegitimate system at a time when it was breaking international laws and committing unjustifiable murders in Iraq. The ruling party in this nation was failing to listen to the people. Because the Portland police, like the cops all over the country, knew that the people had a legitimate gripe, they realized they would need to show extreme force to keep them down. After all, they didn't want "another seattle," now did they.

Oh, Nick. I'm so tired of reading your fluff, but somehow I find myself responding once again. What am I thinking. All right, just one more thing. Blocking corporate media is a means of protecting each other. Not because we necessarily want to break the law, or whatever you implied, but because the corporate media will always misrepresent us. You will always present a slanted picture in favor of your monied interests. That's just what you did in your "All Bets" article, and it's what you will continue to do. You are what you are. YAWWWWN.

WW is no alternative 28.Apr.2003 17:45

Former WW reader

I once read WW because I thought I would get the other side of the story. I thought I could read things there that weren't bent to a corporate agenda. People kept telling me otherwise. I actually got into an argument once because a friend was telling me that WW is no better than the oregonian, and I thought that was ridiculous. Well, no more. I understand what he meant now.
The article in question was very poorly written, and seems to have a personal bias that remains unacknowledged by its author. And this endless prattle about it is beyond outrageous. The author keeps trying to kick up more dust around the sorry little story by posting over and over again on this site. Puh-leese.
Do you know, I even followed the stupid links this guy put up, I don't know why. None of them support what he's claiming. To illustrate, he says someone threatened him. I went back and read through the string, and I can't imagine how he concluded that. No, chicken little, the sky is not falling. Probably someone just wants you to stay the hell away from them.
I'm speaking as a "long time Portland activist," by the way. I thought you might want to know this, Mr. Budnick, since you implied that "long time portland activists" support your slanted side of the story. I most certainly do not. I've really had enough of your transparent attempt to create a name for yourself by constantly stirring this same pot of shit. Please find something else to do with yourself now.

Ditto what working class said 28.Apr.2003 17:58

another worker

Ditto! Concerned Human Being was being classist. Good call.

Budnick's latest blast 28.Apr.2003 20:12

xyzzy

No time for a detailed rebuttal, but the following claim of Budnick's just leapt out at me:
As recently as six months ago, there was enough of an issue that global indymedia urged Portland to undergo a ?recertification? process to ensure PDX still complied with the guiding Indymedia principles. In the e-mail, from global?s Jay, he cites questions others raised as to whether the vote dissolving the collective sparked by Deva and spArk was truly representative, and also says, ?Especially disconcerting is the idea that several people feel as if they have been forced out of the collective.? This recertification process never happened.
The message linked to contains the following mention of "recertification":
Not being in Portland, and fully appreciating the conscious powerlessness of the Indymedia network to effectively address such issues at a local IMC, all I can really do is make a suggestion.

My thought is that the Portland IMC should take advantage of this self-proclaimed "new start" to embark on some serious self-evaluation, honestly addressing past and current internal conflicts. My suggestion is that the Portland IMC find an "outside moderator," someone in the Portland activist community who has not been involved with the IMC, to help guide this process. The Portland IMC could use the draft imc principles of unity as the basis for their discussions, and, as a goal, look toward submitting responses to the draft membership criteria. We've been talking for a long time about old IMCs going through a "recertification/audit" kind of process, responding to the membership criteria documents that new-imcs are required to fill out. Perhaps doing this would be a good excuse for the Portland IMC to seriously address some of its internal issues.

Please pay attention: this message flatly states that there is no recertification process. Budnick is proclaiming PDX Indymedia guilty of failing to go through with a process that doesn't exist! Joseph Heller would be proud.

Moreover, I see no official communication from "global indymedia", just the suggestion of one particular individual.


Portland

censorship 28.Apr.2003 20:30

at indy

truth is, censorship has occurred in various forms on the pdx site

question is - you know who you are - are you willing to step forward and face the limelight for your actions?

if they were indeed "pure", there should be no cause for hiding behind the proverbial curtain

Glad that Nick's taken the time to respond 28.Apr.2003 21:05

Jeff

I believe that some of these "Sick of Nick" comments miss the point. If you don't like what he's saying, then DON'T READ IT.

I think that it's great that people on Indymedia are able to have this type of dialogue with a mainstream reporter, particularly one who has written unflattering comments (to say the least). I think he went into his WW article with an obvious ax to grind, and wrote an unprofessionally slanted article against Deva, spArk, and the rest of the collective. Many people here, including one of the article's primary subjects, had an opportunity to respond at length about their issues with the article.

I think that it's very cool that Nick takes Indymedia seriously enough to read those comments and defend his reporting to the people here. Don't you get that? You might disagree with what he writes, and I certainly don't agree with much of it. However, the fact that he took the time to engage in debate with an expectedly hostile audience is more of a compliment than many of the people posting seem to realize. He's probably reading the follow-up comments (and insults) which have provided members of the collective more opportunity to express their own views and counter some of his arguments (such as the bit about "recertification").

I consider this type of back and forth interaction to have a lot of constructive results, if people bother to learn from it. Please don't automatically throw up your hands and say "shut up and go away, you're an asshole." If you don't like what Nick has to say, there's no one forcing you to read this thread.

jealous 28.Apr.2003 21:20

jesse

Nick,

I am so jealous that you didn't use any of my response to you and your publisher. In your response, you somehow managed to side-step all of my critcisms. Let me give you one more chance to answer directly. You've got not much more to lose....and a lot of integrity to gain back. Are you a journalist or a politician? I hate politicians, I love journalists.

Point 1: Your article is an attempt at personal retribution against Deva and spArk because you didn't like some posters criticisms' of you. It stems from personal (not journalistic) insecurities.

Point 2: Printing personal information and photos that were clearly not desired is a low and immoral tactic.

Point 3: You never answered the charges that WW makes money from sex ads and you work for them, thus you are paid, in part, by sex ads. Feminists like me and just regular ol' moral beings want you to just ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION.

Point 4: PDX IMC's function is the result of many people's work.

jesse

Clarification: I am not Deva 28.Apr.2003 22:00

xyzzy

No time for a detailed rebuttal, but the following claim of Budnick's just leapt out at me[...]
Just took a look at that and realized that my use of the word "rebuttal" made it sort of look like I was Deva posting under a pseudonym. I am not (although I have great respect and admiration for tireless effort he, spArk, and other dedicated volunteers have put in to make PDX Indymedia arguably the most effective of all the local Indymedia sites).

Portland

Nick, Nick, Nick... 28.Apr.2003 22:11

Johnson

It's great that you took the time to respond to Deva, but it appears you have again been outclassed. At any rate, I present you with a proposition: you are completely unaware of your corporate bias.

Please take a serious look at yourself. I read your article and wasn't nearly as miffed as Deva, but I still saw slant--and slant is not characteristic of good journalism. What slant? You have a knack for presenting Indymedia in a belittling tone, and must really have had to dig to come up with what you did (well, at least you put a lot of effort into the article).

1. You explain away police brutality for the entire day by pinning the blame on a small group of protestors. And then the reader is supposed to think that Indymedia has practiced biased journalism for not including clips that they couldn't get into a movie?
2. You talk with people who say Indymedia is ruled by Deva and Spark and who say they felt forced out of the collective. Yet their views are presented as though they have this huge merit--as though Deva and Spark are controlling. Well, first of all, I can recall a couple events where these people were whining all over the PDX Indy boards. They were very childish and weren't at all sypathetic to any views that deviated from their own. You had the tools to investigate further, but it doesn't seem like you did. And have you ever been to an Indy meeting? So the reader is supposed to believe that Indy isn't really open publishing?
3. I could go on, but I just think you need to step back and look at the article again, or have a journalism professor look at it... Presenting both sides to a story does not make that story unbiased. I would say that you have a strong bias and that it is clearly AGAINST Indymedia.

Nick, I was too polite 28.Apr.2003 22:27

Johnson, again

Actually, the impression I got from reading your article was that Indymedia was this great idea from which nothing much ever sprang. All I got from the article was a bit of Indy history, and then a ton of statements that "Indy has this huge list of major problems" which isn't really accurate. What I didn't walk away feeling was any of the positive things about Indymedia (though you touched on some very lightly) like all the good organizing that comes from it, and the stories which otherwise would never be heard, and the tremendous sense of community. Really--have a journalism professor talk with you...

Uh, CatWoman... 28.Apr.2003 23:31

PDXModerate

... maybe you'd do better to read some history. Start out with the 1960s. I don't see the Portland Police using dogs on crowds; I don't see them using firehoses; I don't see them wading into peaceful crowds en masse flailing batons. Consider, if you will, that not everything is black and white (e.g., your representation of all protestors as "victims" and all police as "brutal thugs"), and instead try and differentiate people by their behavior. The charge on the Steel Bridge was agressive, inflammatory, and in the end only did damage to the entire protest and peace movement. The twenty or thirty people who were actively charging must have known that eventually they would get beaten back by the police -- simple numbers should have told them that, let alone the whole issue of the police having pepper spray and batons and body armor and so on. And, of course, it got on TV and got replayed a lot and everyone who wasn't there thinks that the whole protest was like that. Likewise, there were any number of isolated incidents in which police did things that were totally out of line and unethical, not to mention potentially illegal. The pepperspraying of the one woman who was caught next to newspaper boxes (?) comes to mind. The point is this: There were innocent marchers on the Steel Bridge who got peppersprayed because other protestors attacked the police. They are victims. The protestors who attacked the police are not. There were also a lot of cops who stood by and watched the marches that day (I was there, I saw them, I talked to some of them) who were very reasonable and restrained, even though a lot of them were really pissed off by what they saw happening. They are not brutal thugs. The cops who jumped people for stepping off the sidewalk and used any excuse to hose folks down with pepperspray are. You said: "[...] [T]he Portland police, like the cops all over the country, knew that the people had a legitimate gripe, they realized they would need to show extreme force to keep them down." Get a reality check. Sure as hell the average cop on the street doesn't believe this, and they didn't show or use extreme force. (I'm not sure what you mean by "show", but they didn't use any.) Violence only begets violence, and if you think those who give the police a free excuse to let loose on the peaceful majority are innocent victims ... well, I pity you for not being able to see more clearly.

Yeah, the Nazi's were pretty nice that day 29.Apr.2003 00:32

...

and really restrained. All you people who gave them a reason to pull you off the sidewalk and faceplant you, shame on you. And you little phillies out there be sure not to give your men a reason to give you a beating. After all, they're only human.

All said, relatively speaking it's not as bad as it could be, and it's going to get a lot worse. Be good little sheep and maybe you can be a guard in a concentration camp like Mr. Moderate. All hail the Fourth Reich.

Uh, PDXmoderate 29.Apr.2003 07:43

CatWoman

I saw 29 posts (29! Maybe buttlick has a purpose here after all!), and thought I'd check back. I found something addressed to me personally! My, how flattering.

I really don't have time to read the whole thing or respond adequately right now, forgive me adoring fan. But I must take a moment to address the snotty fabrication in the first two sentences:

<<... maybe you'd do better to read some history. Start out with the 1960s. I don't see the Portland Police using dogs on crowds; I don't see them using firehoses; I don't see them wading into peaceful crowds en masse flailing batons. >>

You didn't see cops wading into peaceful crowds en masse flailing batons?!?! Then where the fuck WERE you when they attacked the crowd on 2nd and Burnside that night? I got footage...wanna see it? No, you probably don't. Might discomfit you.

As for reading history, maybe YOU ought to. And start back a little farther. Maybe try the 1930s, when Hitler was rearing his foul head in Europe. See the parallels? You will.

As for the 1960s (and if you really knew your history you'd go back to the 1950s to talk about fire hoses and dogs...), pay a little closer attention. Watch the pattern develop. See how the state begins to slide out of the velvet glove, and become increasingly willing to use lethal force on its own people. Remember Fred Hampton? Remember the people at Kent State? Guess how that starts. With a little abuse of authority here, a little there, and the complicity of the masses who are brainwashed by their TVs into blaming the victims and cheering the oppressors. Wow! I really gotta go now. Maybe I'll check back later and do some spell checking or something.

What She Said 29.Apr.2003 09:59

not a moderate

I second what Catwoman said. PDX moderate, what are you talking about? Do you think the police use of chemical weapons, concussion grenades, rubber bullets, bean bag rounds, and false arrests is somehow better than dogs and firehoses? Oh, and horses. They use horses these days for crowd control too. Big horses with star wars masks that dangerously stomp at us, but we can't fight back because we like the horses and understand they're being used against their will by their oppressors.
I think you must be a cop if you think the police brutality on the 20th and the 25th was somehow not so bad, or that it can be justified because it wasn't as bad as back in the ol' 60s. It was at LEAST as bad. And how would that justify it anyway? Police brutality is police brutality, even if it's not as bad as when they slashed people with broadswords or threw em to the lions.

Working Class? 29.Apr.2003 10:12

Concerned Human Being

I'm not sure why I bother justifying myself but I am, in fact, working class. I'm writing this from my working class job where I work with working class people for working class wages. I do not drink $5 lattes or whatever. So I'm glad that you were able to pigeon-hole me based upon my one paragraph I wrote. It just goes to show you how simple-minded your vision of the world can be. Now, how many black bloc members went to Reed college?

On another note, I also know several people who were some of the last to be arrested that evening (around 2 am) and they had good interactions with the police. Certainly there are far too many overly aggressive police out there with personal gripes who are willing to carry out excessive violence on dissidents. This needs to stop and I'm glad that people are doing watching them and making note of the really bad ones. At the same time, it would be good for some of you to realize that not all of them are "nazis". It would also be good for some of you with "working class" jobs to ask around and see what some of your coworkers think about the protests. Far too many of my coworkers were rooting for the cops! It was scary. I want to support my radical brothers and sisters. I don't mean any of what I say to be an all-out condemnation of your points of view. I simply want to open up the dialogue a bit more to really question some of the tactics and attitudes in the activist community. This is why I was glad to have Nick's article, flawed or not. I think it provides an opportunity to have this conversation. Thank you to all who have written thoughtful comments.

Wow... 29.Apr.2003 11:09

PDXModerate

... and I thought Usenet was bad. Anyway.

To the first response ("..."), you're jumping way past what I said. If you're marching and get "yanked off the sidewalk and faceplanted," I don't think you gave anyone a reason to do that. If you're actively attacking the cops, you give them not only an excuse to beat you up, but also an excuse to go harder on the rest of us. I don't think I said anywhere in there that I support/condone/accept police brutality in any form. I was just trying to point out that not everyone on the protest side is immaculate and holy, and not everyone on the police side is a vengeful representative of the NWO.

CatWoman: Sorry, the first part was a bit snotty. I honestly didn't mean for it to come out that way. Long day.

As for the stuff at 2nd & Burnside, I haven't heard or seen of any actual mass attacks (i.e., where they went in and beat on lots of folks) by police on crowds. I've seen a lot of footage of when they used some flashbangs and charged the crowd to run them back, I've seen lots of footage of the arrests of the group at 2nd & Burnside. I'd love to see your footage if you have something different -- I had gone home by the time that happened and had to settle for TV coverage.

The parallels to what's happening in the U.S. and what happened in 1930s Germany are quite valid, and really, really scary. I completely agree with you there.

Not A Moderate: I'd rather be peppersprayed than have my face bashed in. "Concussion grenades" (flashbangs are what they used, there's actually a difference) don't hurt you. Rubber bullets and beanbags are different, and I agree that they shouldn't be used in crowd control (they weren't designed for that purpose, for the most part). I'm not trying to justify any police brutality, merely point out that some of the police action happened because a splinter/fringe group of protestors attacked them. And, sorry, I'm not a cop.

I really wish this community was a bit more open and accepting. For every reasoned response to my comments, there are two or three nasty, personal attacks. I don't see how that helps anyone.

Radicals are rarely accepting 29.Apr.2003 11:49

PDXLiberal

PDXModerate wrote: "I really wish this community was a bit more open and accepting. For every reasoned response to my comments, there are two or three nasty, personal attacks. I don't see how that helps anyone."
Well, the radical community rarely seems open and accepting - unless you use their rhetoric. You were attacked because you identified yourself as a moderate. That's the radical cue to go for your throat. If you'd made the same remarks as PDXRadical, they might have nodded their heads and written their agreement. I identified myself as a liberal just to push their buttons.
I hated Budnick's article but his point about the radical group driving away any other parts of the activist community was right on. I've read that guy Spark basically writing that anyone who isn't a radical is just another asshole. Lots of activists who I know in Portland have difficulty taking Indymedia seriously anymore, even though it's an important and effective way to spread the word. That's not healthy for any of us.
Anyone who's worked in activist groups knows that there's a whole ebb and flow to the way they evolve. The radical group holds sway over PDX Indymedia right now, and they've done a lot of great work to build and improve the site and it's reporting. In time, a more liberal or moderate group might gain influence, or the current radicals might move in that direction on their own. Who knows?
To the radicals, you kids gotta learn that pigeonholing, stereotyping, and alienating anyone who doesn't agree with you ain't that "radical."

hey PDXLiberal - spArk has a good point 29.Apr.2003 12:38

GRINGO STARS gringo_stars@attbi.com

OK sorry for trying to change the world instead of changing myself to fit how the world works. This behaviour is admittedly, and literally, insane. But without insane folks YOU would be barefoot, pregnant (if you are female) and scything wheat under watchful eyes right now.

There is progressive behaviour and there is conservative behaviour. There are actions which help and those that hinder. True, the world is not black and white...

But there are systems of oppression that work independantly of personalities. These systems perpetuate constant pressure for the good of moneyed interests. There are good cops, to be sure, but the system in which they operate turn most every cop into a blackclad gangster with the law to hide their violence behind. The code is to never snitch on a fellow cop, thereby perpetuating systemic abuses of power in the police all over the country.

If you are not a radical, you might want to continue your education process. Keep learning. With every action you do, you are either part of the solution or part of the problem.

get a grip! 29.Apr.2003 12:44

jesse

PDX IMC is not maintained by radicals in any other sense than the people who maintain it are working at the "root" of the problem. The root being control of information and deliberate manipualtion by use of money.

I would guess that there are only a few, if any, PDX IMC volunteers who would not be open to more moderate points of view. The idea that PDX IMC is "run" by a few "radicals" is what was fed to people by Budnick. If you believe this, you bought his line hook, line and sinker.

It's just simply not true.

...another PDX IMC volunteer

what constitutes attack, moderate? 29.Apr.2003 12:46

video person

if we were talking about a group of people physically assaulting police i might almost pretend to understand what you're talking about. this is -really- why I wish steel bridge footage had been available to us making the video. because even nick admits, that we are talking about a group of people behind banners rushing to get past 3 police. geez, we do that -all the time-.
why?
because three police won't stop us.
now, tons of cops then pouring out of nowhere and beating the shit out of us in reaction, i suppose thats something that can kind of be expected. but goddammit! THERE IS NOTHING THAT GIVES LISCENSE FOR POLICE TO FUCK PEOPLE UP WHO ARENT THREATENING THEM!

gah.

anyway
i agree with you on certain points - baiting each other and picking on anonymous people for being bougie is mostly pointless. but questioning whether or not their critique sounds priviledged makes more sense [in both directions].

Moderates and Liberals get a grip 29.Apr.2003 13:28

not a radical

Moderates and Liberals work hard to alienate anyone who isn't down with their mindset and methodology, and then they admonish "radicals" to stop driving people away. Many times they do this in a public way, further marginalizing people they don't agree with, and providing support for authorities and their crackdowns.

I don't consider myself a radical at all, but am always accepted in the circles you like to call closed. Because you can't control it, you have to characterize it as antagonistic. Who wrote a little screed, ostensibly just to be "funny?", telling local "radicals" to take a shower before going to an anti-war rally? It was condescending, insulting and ironic, considering the person was lecturing on the charms of being more "inclusive."

It's really like you're standing before a door, M/s/r. Moderate and M/s/r. Liberal, saying you can't get in, without trying the knob.

Please, please look in a mirror.

GREAT discussion 29.Apr.2003 17:09

Anony-mowse

I especially enjoyed the last few posts, but the whole string has been interesting to watch develop.

I do want to say that PDX Liberal just made me laugh out loud with this comment:

"To the radicals, you kids gotta learn that pigeonholing, stereotyping, and alienating anyone who doesn't agree with you ain't that "radical."

HA! And what are you doing, PDX? It might interest you to know that I'm a 36 year old mother and public employee. And I have always been accepted among, and fully support, the radicals. So maybe you can reconsider your "you kids" label. It's pigeonholing, stereotyping, and alienating.

Also, PDX moderate, thanks for clarifying your point. You made a lot more sense in your second message than you did in the first. (I also thought the first one sounded clueless and snotty, but the second sounds more open minded and honest.)

I do want to let you know, though, that I was there on 2nd and Burnside, and it wasn't anything like they told you on T.V. Yes, the police charged in and beat people up. Lots of them. It was like a horrific scene from Nazi Germany, only it was here. Also, about your comment that you'd rather be pepper sprayed than have your face bashed, I need to point out two things. First, the Portland police have done both in the past month, more than once. It's been really an eye opener for those who didn't know we live in a police state. Second, I don't think it's in anyone's interest to rank them. Both are assaults perpetrated by the state. Both are painful, both are designed to intimidate, both are unjustifiable attacks on human beings by the law enforcement officers who, the myth tells us, are supposed to be "serving and protecting" us. In fact, both types of assault can kill. All forms of police brutality need to be abolished, not just those that seem a little worse than the others.

Don't take this as a slam, though, moderate. I do appreciate your addition to this discussion. We're all in differnet places in our learning process, and this kind of interplay is valuable to all of us. We don't even necessarily have to agree on everything. We simply have to keep on learning and keeping our minds open.

Overcoming hypocrisy 29.Apr.2003 17:39

C

Some people believe that any press is good press. Whether or not that is true, I believe that Nick Budnick's article about Indymedia is a blessing in that it has turned the spotlight on Indymedia, not only providing an advertisement, but also giving it a chance to look in on itself and make much needed changes.

I do not propose to know how PDX Indymedia works, but I sincerely doubt that it is perfect, and suspect that some of Nick Budnick's criticisms are valid. Just because you don't like Nick B. and what/how he writes, doesn't make him incapable of giving valid criticism. I suggest that PDX Indymedia take advantage of this opportunity to re-evaluate itself and what it is becoming. I am frightened by some of the things I hear coming from Indymedia proponents that are sounding more and more Orwellian, and I mean this in a bad way. Don't let yourself become what you despise!

C

Missing the point? 30.Apr.2003 07:41

Jed Duncan

Howdy. I'm Jed Duncan, the guy whose message was originally censored here on IndyMedia. I got quite a chuckle out of the message that implied that Nick Budnick and I are the same person or somehow in cahoots.

When I posted my message to the original article a few weeks back, I soon left town for work (perhaps someone can be nice enough to find the URL for it). I've returned to see that not much has changed.

I wasn't at the bridge, so I can't judge Mr. Budnick's reporting. However, I can certainly assert that whether he's got a slush fund from Rupert Murdoch or not, much of the IndyMedia crowd *SIMPLY DO NOT GET IT*.

My censored post contained one piece of "bile" (that I remember, anyway) - the use of the term "wingnuts." Given some of the ad hominem that appeared then and even in this thread, that's Fred Rogers level insulting. No objective reader would have pointed out my message as the offensive one.

No, the reason my message was censored was simply because I pointed out the hypocrisy of some of the actions of well regarded radicals. I thought then, as I do now, to violently protest violence is absurd and hypocritical.

**TO THEN HAVE THAT MESSAGE CENSORED BY INDYMEDIA WAS KAFKAESQUE**. Have you no sense of irony? Don't you recognize that by supporting that action, YOU HAVE BECOME THE ENEMY?

I love seeing Catwoman's "perspective" on history, as she fails to recognize that this kind of behavior is exactly what makes you irrelevant, quickly.

You all ought to be THANKING Budnick for giving you more attention that you deserve.

Cripes.

M2's curious bias 30.Apr.2003 11:02

Rob Vaughn RobWVaughn@netscape.net

M2 wrote about Budnick:

"when you wrote your "rubbish!" piece in december, you earned a few points in my eyes for a somewhat original and gutsy move. your recent "corporate media is the disease" article and response above have forced me to retract those points for complaining and sensationalizing."

So, basically, as long as Mr. Budnick writes articles that support your view, he's a good guy and "earns points". But if he writes an article that doesn't support your view, or (gasp) questions your assumptions or suggests that perhaps Indymedia is a less than perfect medium, just like the Williamette Week, then he's a jerk and "loses points".

Please look up the meaning of subjective (your approach) vs. objective (Budnick's approach). If you're not willing to look at all sides of any debate or system, and you're not willing to be self-critical, then you've lost all claims to objectivity. Newspapers at least strive towards that ideal. They don't claim to have the high moral ground on it but then show how subjective they really are.

Re: the attack on "moderate liberals". Considering myself one, I find it funny that the lefties are trying so hard to become "radical" that they'd attack someone who's 90% on their side. You've got folks like Peter Stott running a company into the ground while building million dollar McMansions in the West Hills (something reported by Willy Week, but I haven't seen here) and you're busy railing against people like me?

I'll say it again - radicalism only pushes anyone who's not as extreme to you to the other side. Firstly because you're forcing that move by drawing new lines in the sand, and secondly because of a basic tenant of human nature - push people to do what you want without the force to make them, and they'll do the opposite, just to spite you. That's the way people work.

Deva - your replies are very polite, which is nice, but statements like "I okayed the use of my photo but wished it wouldn't be used" is just silly. Of course they'd use it, they don't even need your okay, unfortunately. Wishing something doesn't make it happen. Worse still if you hadn't articulated this wish until now, because nobody's a mind-reader. Overall, I thought it was powerful photo and it brought a lot of attention to Indymedia, which is supposed to be a good thing, right?

Y'all need to see that no matter the position, there's always two sides (and many shades of grey, in my worldview) and there's good and bad to it all. Try, for once, to stop acting like a bunch of activist goths and see some of the good side. You can use Budnick's article to your great advantage. The rich in Beverly Hills realize this - "Any publicity is good publicity".

Lastly, I can state for the record that Jed Duncan, who had at least one post completely removed from the thread mentioned in Budnick's article, maybe two, is absolutely not the same person as Nick Budnick. Call me a troll or say I'm Budnick too if you want. After all, it's easier to jump to conclusions, esp. ones you want, than accept the truth.

Hint: make Indymedia non-anonymous and you won't spend nearly as much time worrying about trolls, etc.

Cheers, Rob V.


Northeast Portland

pearls before swine 09.Nov.2003 01:58

clamydia

you can't "literally" cast pearls before swine unless you are, in fact, throwing pearls in front of pigs.