portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary portland metro

alternative media | media criticism selection 2004

Indymedia censors positive Kerry posting

I posted yesterday what I thought was an informative post on Kerry's environmental platform, It seems to have been composted, but for what reason? If informed debate about issues is going to be part of the discussion here, it's necessary to look at both sides.
I find it incredible that a positive posting on Kerry would be censored on this site. What are you all so afraid of? If you don't censor thousands of posts from the same few individuals claiming "no difference" between Bush and Kerry, why would you censor some specific evidence countering that claim?

I have lost faith in this site. Perhaps you would take a few minutes to explain this censorship, which seems so purely malicious. Doesn't this site support informed debate? I used to think so, but I'm a lot less sure of that, now.
please state the title of the post or the name used for the post 27.Jun.2004 08:53


as a pdx imc workerbee, I will attest that we do not censor the pro-kerry standpoint. while many of us may not agree with that standpoint, it is highly unlikely that it was composted.

more likely, it is on the sElection 2004 page check it out and see if it is there. Otherwise check the Compost Bin and if it is there, please state the link or the title so we can explain why it was composted.

This site is a community based tactic, and most likely the post is on the sElection 2004 page. It can also be explained here why it is on that page on not on the main newswire.

yes, moved to s2004 page 27.Jun.2004 09:03

but why move that one, and not Nader posts?

Thanks for the info. You are right that the post was moved to the selction2004 page, which makes some sense. Sorry about the composting assumption. But why are some election articles moved off the main page, and others not? Does PDX IMC have an official policy of supporting Nader?

no 27.Jun.2004 09:14

same workerbee

There is no policy of supporting Nader or any candidate whatsoever. The history behind the sElection 2004 page is that reposts of and other non-local articles would overtake the main newswire and make it unuiseable for local events and happenings. In that vein we set up the sElection 2004 page so people that wanted to talk about the national elections had an outlet while the site remained local in scope.

The reason there is a bunch of Nader stuff up right now and that there was alot of Kucinich stuff in the recent past is because it is/was a local issue. Kucinich was holding local eventa and campaigns in Portland and that was covered and left on the main page, something that is happening where we live.

The Nader stuff is up there currently because he is in Portland campaigning and it is a currently a local issue. Once it is non-local and just about the elcetion, the non-local nader stuff will aslo show up on the sElection 2004 page.

There has been concern about this move that pdx imc was downplaying the importance of the national elections. In a sense we are. Because many of us feel that the national elections do not reflect anything that is of local importance to the people in and around Cascadia. It is not local news. We want to continue to provide an outlet for local community based events without the mess of things that dont really matter.

If you want to write a story about how Kerry represents the people of Cascadia or Portland specifically, feel free to do that and it will show up on the main page. Do you get the feel for how this works? It is a bit confusing and has caused a lot of calls of censorship which we are trying to expain as they come up. We have had features about it and there is a current link to the sElection 2004 page in the upper left corner of the site.

In the future, feel free to send an email to us directly or come to the local pdx imc meetings, that information can be found on the "contact us" and "about us" pages at the top of the site! Thanks for using the indy tactic!

Yes, Very Right 27.Jun.2004 11:23

Red neck


what is up with that? 27.Jun.2004 11:28


My posts against Kerry are censored.

Why Fahrenheit 911 is no ringing endorsement of John Kerry

1. Kerry did not push for investigation of 911 believed official story line-Kerry was in the Navy so he did not remember that the air force actually has a standard procedure for handling hijackings. John Kerry believed that the most powerful military in the world, after 60+ intercepts that year, behaved as bumbling idiots allowing planes to fly unintercepted for 1 1/2 hours on the one day we needed them.

2. Kerry was coward and voted for the patriot act, probably didn't even read it. He still plans on keeping 95% of the patriot act.

3. Kerry voted for the giving the president the right to declare war on anyone in the name of terror. Kerry then said he would speak out if Bush went to Iraq without UN approval. Then when Bush did, Kerry covered for him and said we were all in in together. He is not a leader. He is a bigger fool than Bush

4. When asked about his vote on the war Kerry said "no I do not regret my vote" even after it was clear there was no sign of WMDs. Kerry had in fact embellished Bush's reports of WMD's in trying to convince the senate to vote for the war.

5. When asked about the evidence being wrong Kerry replied "well that's what we were told" apparently having done no research on his own. A short google search would have informed him that they had very little 'evidence' which all ended up being faked and a joke at the UN. Kerry, having been in the senate for 19 years should have known that the sanctions and intense weapons inspections had eliminated all WMD's. Colin Powell and Condi both stated that there were no WMD's in 2001.
"[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." -- Colin Powell, (Feb. 24, 2001, Cairo, Egypt)

6. Perhaps the biggest problem with John Kerry besides not regretting his ignorant choices in believing the administration and perpetuating lies, is that he wants to continue the war, add 40,000 troops even. This war which he voted for, is now clearly based on lies, and yet he wants to continue it? Is this the same guy that said " how can you ask a man to be the last man to die for a lie?"

7. John Kerry plans to continue the 'war on terror' which is now also apparently a lie created to help corporations make money. He even vowed to "take the fight to the enemy on every continent". Need I say more?

8. John Kerry plans to link aid to countries based on how friendly they are to Israel. Talk about increasing hatred and terrorism. "I would first want to link it to the warmth of relationship to Israel and the effort to secure general stability in the middle east. You have to put your priorities first" Speechless.
The truth about Kerry
The truth about Kerry

Aw hell 27.Jun.2004 12:31


Well THAT's where all my attempts to repost Nader's statement about voting for Kerry in swing states like Oregon.

I am sorry I reposted the same thing so many times, I thought it was getting lost in the ether or something.

another suggestion 27.Jun.2004 13:32


Before jumping to conclusions and yelling "censorship!" a good idea would be to use the search feature to search for your title, or the author name you provided. And even then it's usually good to wait a little while before making accusations. I'd hate to think people wouldn't give others the benefit of the doubt. If we are so quick to judge and tear-down our allies then we have more to worry about than our government.

cointelro? 27.Jun.2004 13:37

another workerbee

Could you please provide the title of the article you think was censored and maybe I can help you locate it.

Well, then why would Nader even want to 27.Jun.2004 13:37


RUN in a swing state like Oregon? He should know better.

censored? 27.Jun.2004 15:34

not surprised

I thought that posts usually ended up in the compost bin after the string ran out of space. Apparently not. A fresh post from this morning regarding The Green Party not choosing Nader, and referring to the Greens as now "irrelevant and gutless", also ended up in the compost bin.

Call it what you will, but it would appear that the posts are being screended to fit someone's agenda. So much for free speech on PDX IMC. We may as well be sending letters to editor of The Oregonian...

to workerbees, from Kerry poster 27.Jun.2004 16:34

thanks for the reasonable responses

And also for the lack of anger at my assumption of composting. I definitely jumped the gun on that one. I appreciate the explanation of the s2004 page, and I do see that Nader's getting attention now because of the Oregon convention.

I certainly will post stuff on Kerry's relevance to Cascadia. And I think voting for him is relevant to us, because I want there to be something left of this place when we finally get free.

Go PDXIMC! Nothing's perfect, but there's an awful lot of good info that gets passed through this site. I hope you'll keep it as open as you can.

not surprised 27.Jun.2004 18:06

another workerbee

What post are you referring to? There is no such post in the compost bin. Check the selection 2004 page; I think you'll find the post you're referring to.