SPECIAL COVERAGE

regions

topic pages

genres

actions

all action pages >>

resources

newswire article

reporting

united states

17.May.2005 10:26

alternative media | media criticism

National Conference on Media Reform Reportback

author: bht

The National Conference on Media Reform (NCMR) took place in St. Louis, MO, May 13-15. This was the second reform conference hosted by Free Press, with an attendance of more than 2200 people.

This conference was about reformist politics, academic speech, and money. Reformers are generally people that recognize that a problem exists, and use their dollars and sense to rectify that problem. These people exist everywhere. In this incantation the people had recognized that the media may not be telling the truth all of the time and in some cases may also be working or the governement or the corporations that own them in an attempt to trick the people into thinking a certain way or beleiving a certain set of lies.

Naturally, they would like to see this problem resolved, so they go to their state senator or congressman, alderman, some man in charge, and ask for reform. They ask the systems of control to ease up a little bit. The systems of control naturally say 'no' because this would jeopardize the control that they wield. However, the reformers are failing to see that the problems are systemic and that they go all the way up and exist in every aspect of life. Their attempts to reform everything work to keep corruption in control.

Some radical media makers went to this conference to connect with one another, some with scholarships from the hosts, Free Press. The radical media makers, especially the indymedia crowd, went to the panels put together by Free Press and spoke about the larger problems of capitalism and attempted to connect the movements together. The reformers seemed hellbent on subsidizing independant media and throwing around dollar bills.

A bit about the sessions offered:

One of the panels was "Independent Media: Creating the Solution" (download mp3), where the panelists largely talked of the history of Independent Media and how people could pay money to be a part of Independent Media. They talked of their successes, and it was so funny, because sitting through the opening of this panel, the first couple of minutes is just listing off the panelists achievements and I felt that it was so unnecessary. This is a personal opinion, but it isnt how much a person has done in their life that makes me beleive them or think that they are good people, it is how accessible and open they are with that knowledge they hold. I saw none of the panelists anywhere but on the panel. That is a continuation of this overall system of beleif that we do not hold in ourselves, each and every one of us, the ability to be successful (in whatever permeation you shoose to define success). The elitism that reflects reinforces in my mind the idea that there are people better than me and why cant us allies all be on a level playing field, why cant we share with each other in a human way?

That was the only panel I went to, and I didnt stay through all of it. However, some indymedia folks had more patience in them and a stronger will to speak out, and for that action helped to spread the message of indymedia. Some of the other things that I witnessed were the caucuses, of which I attended two. I attended briefly the Independent Media Producers caucus. I left shortly after it started becuase it seemed to not be a caucus but just another white guy telling us how it is. I went to a caucus that was more important for me to be at: Northwest Media Makers.

The Northwest Caucus was smaller than I thought it would be. It was a roundtable discussion with about 15 people from Oregon and Washington, and I will continue this part referring to their Northwest as Cascadia...as a small representation of the differences between people. I arrived at the caucus just as introductions were starting, and there were folks from OR, WA, and ID; Reclaim the Media, City of Portland, KBOO, and I identified myself as a volunteer with portland indymedia. The overall discusion was dominated by David Olson, the Director of Portland Cable Access (i beleive) and a person who plays a similar role in Seattle. Jonathon Lawson from Reclaim the Media spoke often as well, especially about the upcoming conference in Bellingham, WA: Bellingham Grassroots + Independent Media Conference, May 21. He also made the suggestion of having a larger media conference in the Northwest for 2006. Overall the discussion was very heavy about policy and about networking, I beleive it was David Olson that started the discussion on networking different forms of media in the northwest. I really appreciated the ideas that people had about working together to advance the state of media in Cascadia.

Some of the other things that I noted from that conference were: archiving radio shows like those that appear on KBOO so that they can be listened to at any time instead of just when they are live, portland indymedia audio folks have started doing this with Circle A Radio from KBOO; both spokane, wa and moscow, id have successul LPFM stations; someone from PIRG made the suggestion of auditing public interest research groups to see if they are actually in the publics interest; another very big thing that was discussed was the collapse of Adelphia and its future; and more things about legislation that i didnt understand.

After these caucuses, the indymedia folks were finally fed up with the reformers and decided it was time to take a bit of action and put indymedia in the faces of these reformers so that they could have a chance to see a solution instead of just hearing abstractlly about them through panels and keynotes. After a true indymedia caucus attended by nearly 50 indy activists and from at least 18 different IMC's, the decided courses of action were to create a physical IMC in the next half an hour to bring the tactic of independent media production to the fingers and faces of these people, and also to connect with other marginalized constituencies to try to make a statement to the next days closing plenary.

Withing that half an hour, indymedia activists took action and took over a section of the grand hall in front of the ballroom where Al Franken was about to host that evenings keynote. We had made flyers, commandered some tables, and rounded up about ten laptops--all connected to stlimc.org. We engaged people on their way to the keynote asking is they knew about IMC and then showing them what it was. We encouraged folks to write comments about the conference and take action. We showed them a tool that could be used free of charge, and some of them got it. Some of them sat there and wrote articles, visit these articles [ 1, 2 ] and stlimc.org to see what people had to say or to add your own comments or articles about the conference.

This action lasted until the internet connection in the building seemingly ran out. All of the streams that the conference was hosting and all of the wireless we were using stopped. There was an attempt by a Canadian Imcista to create a word document to keep people writing their thoughts, but that was short lived and the day was late. Before we could leave, however, Pacifica Radio asked to interview some of the imcistas about the indymedia caucus and the action that was taking place. Luckily some folks still had evergy to do that.

Overall, this conference was about media reform and about continuing single issue reform instead of understanding and undertaking the overall task at hand which is liberation from these systems of control that are government and corporate propaganda.

This report is one interpretation and vastly incomplete of the complexities surround this conference. Please fill in the blanks using the comments sections, or read more about what I couldnt fit in here through the links provided above and below.

St Louis IMC I Be The Media Blog I Followup on the National Conference On Media Reform I Conference Sessions Available for Download I Cambridge Community Television Streaming Video Lipstick on a Pig - The Folly of Media Reform I Media Reform or Revolution? I St. Louis Confluence I And remember, for more radical media makers, the Allied Media Conference is coming up soon.

add a comment on this article

Thanks bht

17.May.2005 11:00

CatWoman

link

This is an awesome overview, both of the conference and of the stark differences between reformist posturing and radical action.

another report

17.May.2005 11:48

bht

link

http://www.diymedia.net/archive/0505.htm#051705

the time to reform media...

17.May.2005 12:16

indyista

link

...is past. it won't happen now. corporate control is simply too tight. there's no reason for broadcasters and newspapers to be responsive. their bottom line is all that matters.

unfortunately, many in the Left are seeking this goal anyway. their efforts will not win the war. sure a battle or two here or there might be in their favor, but the tide of fascism in the u.s. has risen too high to be stemmed by such efforts at this point.

the only solution is to create new media forms that are not corporate-controlled and to BOYCOTT ALL CORPORATE MEDIA. separating money from journalism is the only way to have honest journalism.

OPPOSITION not RECUPERATION

17.May.2005 17:13

thanks

link

I was watching Bill Moyer's keynote address on Democracy Now - which I am finding is just as prone to following the "latest news" of official PR press rooms - when it occured to me that Moyer's and others like him were APOLOGISTS and RECUPERATORS for the system they appear to be speaking against. Thanks for keeping your heads clear indymediates and bringing some REAL "fresh air" to media awareness.

Also, can we have a just-news and hard to come by reports from an indymedia internet radio program? I can listen to music and stuff on my own. We need condensed and outloud news reports on corporate globalization and its opposition!

Agree

17.May.2005 18:09

Funkinest Journalist

link

I too was in st. louis and agree largely with this post's perspective. I would add to it a lack of connection with the "people of color" and particularly poor black america. i tried to address this by introducing myself and my mixtape radio project (freemix radio

http://voxunion.com) and like this post explains i found that many of the panelists - particularly the white left icons like naomi campbell, amy goodman, etc.) were cold, off-putting and acted very much like "i cant be bothered with you unfamous black folks" kinds of "radical" celebs.

I also watched as indy media folks were ignored when inviting people to engage in action or when some like myself asked about what system we were attempting to reform and would this be realistic. it was frustrating and occured to me that one of the reasons we find ourselves facing these kinds of gaps is because the conveners of the conference - while i may personally like mcchesney and others - are those (or the sons/daughters) of those who abandonned our earlier revolutionary movements that had they been successful would have made this conference moot.

yes we can!

17.May.2005 18:11

~Bradley

link

Sometimes i'm not sure if i should leave a short comment that says, "thanks, great article."

Sometimes I'll pull a favorite quote from the article: "This is a personal opinion, but it isnt how much a person has done in their life that makes me beleive them or think that they are good people, it is how accessible and open they are with that knowledge they hold. I saw none of the panelists anywhere but on the panel. That is a continuation of this overall system of beleif that we do not hold in ourselves, each and every one of us, the ability to be successful (in whatever permeation you shoose to define success). The elitism that reflects reinforces in my mind the idea that there are people better than me and why cant us allies all be on a level playing field, why cant we share with each other in a human way?"

Other times I feel someone needs to respond to a particular comment or question: "Also, can we have a just-news and hard to come by reports from an indymedia internet radio program? I can listen to music and stuff on my own. We need condensed and outloud news reports on corporate globalization and its opposition!"

YES, WE CAN! The Indymedia doors are wide open for a program like this! This could be a project taken up by one person, such as "thanks", or it can be done in a collective model, such as the Houston Independent Media Center's audio working group, etc.... If "thanks" or anyone else can then upload the finished product on Indymedia or Radio4all.net, then it will surely be played on Free Radio Santa Cruz and countless other independent media outlets.

do not wait. Take action today.

More than Boycotts and Piracy

17.May.2005 18:23

Wild Green

link

It is going to take more than boycotts of the corporate media and more than widespread direct action microradio and microtelevision casting.

We can not hope to achieve any level of victory until the corporate media is seen as the enemy it is. When people see the FOX news logo and shake their fists. . .

We can not hope to achieve any level of victory until we can engage a larger segement of population with becoming the media. Until more people see themselves as indymedia.

It is going to take extraordinarily rewarding hard work.

"He made the suggestion of having a larger media conference in the Northwest for 2006. Overall the discussion was very heavy about policy and about networking, I believe it was David Olson that started the discussion on networking different forms of media in the northwest. I really appreciated the ideas that people had about working together to advance the state of media in Cascadia."

This would be highly encouraging. A related regional conference happened at the "NYC Grassroots Media Conference":

http://www.nycgrassrootsmedia.org/ Anarchist bookfairs and Pirate Radio Conferences are other examples.

Regional networks and regional network projects such as regional conferences are excellent ways of building a grassroots resistance. Imagine the other possibilities of grassroot media networks.

Another example is the merging of indymedia center projects with infoshop projects such as we see with the Indymedia Urbana project. See, "Illinois: Indymedia Urbana Buys Post Office":

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=2005050713354937#comments

The success of the A-Infos Radio Project is also encouraging:

http://www.radio4all.net/news/030905-update.php

They can't be ALL bad

17.May.2005 22:01

indymedia fan

link

those reformers -- "hellbent on subsidizing independant media and throwing around dollar bills."

But the radical indymedia people probably have more fun.

Also, I hope that those were at least $20 bills, or, better yet, C-notes.

Why this feature has been left at the top for more than one day

18.May.2005 09:01

indyista

link

i thank bht for attending the conference and posting this report. His experience there highlights a central question of media activism (and other forms of activism): whether to try to change the system, or to create a new system to replace it.

For many indymedia activists, including me, the entire point of indymedia is to create a new system, since the old one is, in our minds, UNreformable. It is a mistake, in this view, to believe the corporate media is NOT doing its job, as media reform activists would claim. Rather, social control through propaganda is exactly the job of corporate media, and it's doing that very well. Certainly, corporate media presents itself as being a distributor of journalism, but that's a conceit. Unfortunately, many talented people get jobs in that industry because they believe the conceit. Most who hang on to their values face great disappointment as they find that they cannot do what they want to do and what needs to be done. But many of that most have in the meantime made lifestyle choices or commitments that make it very difficult to do without the job once they have it. That unhappy results come from unhappy people is no surprise.

Institutions will be the voice of the people only if they are controlled by the people. In the case of indymedia, open publishing is how this takes form, and the content of the site reflects that -- it's diverse and broad and not all in agreement. By contrast, the corporate newspapers, radio stations and TV channels are controlled by small groups of people, and so logically the content is homogenous, narrow, and supportive of particular viewpoints. As such, corporate media cannot be reformed; we cannot demand that the people who control it do things that are not in their own best interest. They won't. It's a simple truth, really, but the myth of "objectivity" is a powerful one, and most people have not been able to make themselves see that it's not true. From the sounds of it, the conference bht attended was set up by people who are still in the dark about this fundamental state of the universe.

'Wild Green', in a comment above, has got it right when s/he says: "We can not hope to achieve any level of victory until the corporate media is seen as the enemy it is. When people see the FOX news logo and shake their fists." It's true it will take more than "boycotts and piracy", but it's also true that those two elements are essential. People MUST stop consuming all corporate media, and must instead support real community media. Freeing oneself and society from the ugly, destructive beast that is modern corporatism will not be possible without either, or without further steps like the ones suggested.

BTW, the people who say, "I read it because I want to see what the enemy is doing," are deluded. Their brains are still being exposed to poison and they are still supporting the system. As someone who has more than 99% boycotted corporate media for nearly five years now, i can tell you that i'm more in touch than ever with "what the enemy is doing". It's actually a better perspective you get from the outside looking in. Most of the people who make that claim, above, are simply in denial about their continued addiction to corporate media. For the time being, it's useful for a small number of people to view corporate media with the intention of exposing it, and then spreading the word about what they've found, so that more people can understand that corporate media = lies. However, we don't need that many media critics, and that task should be traded back and forth so that people have time off from it. Consuming corporate media regularly for very long is simply bad for one's mental, physical, and spiritual well-being.

So, because this story hits at the heart of the very issues that define indymedia's purpose and challenges, it has been placed at the top of the site, where it will reside for a few days. These are essential issues for indymedia participants to consider and act upon.

Professionalism is not necessarily a bad thing

18.May.2005 09:40

NY IMC writer

link

I met BHT at the conference and liked hanging out with him, but I have to disagree with his comments that "just listing off the panelists achievements... was so unnecessary." Many of us don't know these people, so listing their experience and credentials in the field gives them credibility. When David Olson, who is experienced in the field of cable regulation, says that telecommunications corporations are attacking community broadband because it interferes with their monopoly, it carries more weight than it would coming from somebody who doesn't have that experience.
Also, the problem with developing independent, community media strong enough to counter corporate media is financial. If we were going to get a reporter on the ground in Iraq to cover the war there, we'd need to pay their planefare, get them a place to live, and give them enough money to get around and the communications gear to send their stories back. That's not cheap.
Even at the local level, we could do much better stories if we had the time to work on them full-time, instead of just scamming time off from our day jobs.
There's a difference between radical journalism and radical-politics blogging.

Thank you NY IMC Writer

18.May.2005 10:30

good points made

link

I find it somewhat disturbing that some on this board profess anyone can be a "journalist". Journalism is supposed to be objective, the point is to provide unbiased information and facts so the reader can make an informed opinion about the events and the world around her/him.

Many of the writers on this board promote their own type of propaganda, I won't call it information or new because too few provide sources, or credible facts (i.e., backed up somewhere) to make legitimate points. Much of what I read on here could kindly be called essays.

I'm not trying to bash anyone for writing, but let's call an apple an apple. Journalism is a craft, it's like saying anyone who scribbles on a piece of paper is an artist. Some have the talent to provide information in a clear, concise, and objective manner, some don't.

And yes, it takes money. Does it take a news conglomerate? No, but it does take money and skill.

Okay everyone, bash away!

One LOVE...One Way...

18.May.2005 10:52

loveandtruth

loveandtruth@rock.com

link

A lot of truth is being spoken. I do not see the media in this country changing based upon media reform gatherings alone. However, it will take everyone doing every little bit that they can in order to get anywhere. Without indymedia groups attending such meetings in order to lead by example of different possibilities that exist and not only talking about such possibilities...but actually taking action to show how they work...then these types of meetings will do nothing at too slow of pace. GOOD WORK INDYMEDIA REPS! Also, if everyone will not start somewhere...such as boycotting corporate media...then they will never have the new found time in their lives to be able to volunteer for places such as indymedia. I see the need to take this even one step further...I feel it is time to boycott television all together. It is time for people to reclaim their communities...to come together and create more environments of unconditional acceptance where people feel open and accepted enough to gather and speak to one another about the "News" in their area...face to face...person to person...heart to heart. This may be the only way that we can take away the power that the politicians, corporations and the Federal Communications Committee have over the majority of our society through the median of the television. Maybe this is only the first step that must be taken in order to unite enough people to make real change occur faster than trying to go through the systems that are already in place in order to protect the people in power. Regardless of what company owns each individual TV station or TV network...The F.C.C. is a system that is in place by our government to have some control over television, radio, telephone, ect. So if communities in this country start to unite and find out the real truth to any given circumstance and then want to hold the "News" liable for what they have portrayed as the truth...Then they would also be able to hold our politicians liable for the lies because through the F.C.C. our politicians have the power to make change occur and they are doing nothing. So even if their association with the lies shown by our media is difficult to prove...it is easy enough to prove that they know what is going on and are doing nothing about it and are therefore guilty of the conspiracy. Any lower division "reporting for the media" college course will show how "News" programs are never liable for what they portray to our society as truths...it will also show one how to legally lie in order to portray a different story than the whole truth. Furthermore, it will also show how the F.C.C. is the government agency that is supposed to be regulating these medians...yet they do nothing about all the lies and are therefore guilty of not doing the job that our tax $ is paying them to do. So this truth needs to get out there to the majority of our society...so that they can FIRST, STOP BELIEVING WHAT THE NEWS TELLS THEM, SECOND...SO THAT THEY WILL SEEK THE TRUTH FOR THEMSELVES, THIRD...SO THAT THEY WILL BE SO DISGUSTED
WITH WHAT THEY HAVE LEARNED THAT THEY WILL WANT TO STOP WATCHING TELEVISION ALL TOGETHER AND THEREFORE HAVE THE TIME IN THEIR LIVES TO TAKE THE STEPS TO OVERRIDE THE SYSTEM THAT IS IN PLACE...
Accomplishing these things will be the only way to keep our politicians from using the media to lie to our country in order to go to WAR again. Furthermore, it will be the only thing that will bring all people to an environment that many of us have already found to be a possibility. We will then be able to lead by example and share with everyone utopia, zen, nirvanna, heaven...or whatever name you wish to give an environment where everyone truly Loves One Another Unconditionally. LOVE is the one thing that all people around the globe have in common regardless of where you were born...of what you look like...or of what spiritual book you read from. Just the same as Food, Water, and Shelter...at every moment it is becoming more and more apparent that LOVE is our 4th basic human NEED! In order to feel this LOVE...the TRUTH must first be exposed...
ONE LOVE
PEACE~

Money, Professionalism, and the Media

18.May.2005 11:48

CatWoman

link

NY IMC writer says, "Also, the problem with developing independent, community media strong enough to counter corporate media is financial." Man, I SOOO disagree. The problem with the corporate media is money. The problem with the world we live in, is money. We do not need more of it, we need to learn to live without it. We need to go around capitalism, to overgrow capitalism, to compost capitalism. We need to think and live in an entirely new manner.

NY IMC writer's inability to break through the veil and imagine a new way is symptomatic of the disease. This is the rut of capitalism: losing oneself, one's time and energy, chasing the buck rather than breaking free. Financial backers, rich people, are never going to share in a manner that goes against their own interests. The most you can hope for on this road is the scraps from the table, enough to eek out a meaningless existence until you get too uppity. It's a trap, my friend. If you don't wind up making way too many compromises on the way to financial success (and you will), if your message is not deluded by the requests of "backers" (and it will be), then in the end the plug will be pulled. That's how the system works.

NY IMC goes on to say, "If we were going to get a reporter on the ground in Iraq to cover the war there, we'd need to pay their planefare, get them a place to live, and give them enough money to get around and the communications gear to send their stories back. That's not cheap." With all due respect, NY, you haven't been paying attention. If we are to have a reporter on the ground in Iraq, it will be an Iraqi. It doesn't take whitey flying off around the world to interpret everything for us. It takes empowering others to tell their own stories. It takes imagination. It takes listening to another's voice.

That's what indymedia is about. This is not something that can be bought or sold. It dismays me to see people try.

"Good points made" thanks NY IMC for the comments, and then adds, "I find it somewhat disturbing that some on this board profess anyone can be a 'journalist.' Journalism is supposed to be objective, the point is to provide unbiased information and facts so the reader can make an informed opinion about the events and the world around her/him."

Leaving aside my own peeve with the use of the word "board" here, I must ask who the "journalists" are who meet good point's criteria. Because while one may imagine that journalism is "supposed to be objective," it never has been. That is a convenient and powerful myth. And it's a very destructive myth. There is no such thing as objectivity. Anyone who spends any time as a journalist will admit this, or they are lying. As a journalist, you have all the power in the world over which stories you will cover and which you will not, what angle you will take with those stories, whom you will interview, which questions you will ask, which answers you will record. As an editor, you can choose which stories will make the cut and which will not, which ones will go on the front page above the fold, and which will be tucked in the back with the want ads. It's a pattern of control that "good points" and others need to recognize for what it is.

In truth, everyone has an agenda. It's much more respectful of the audience, and much less dangerous, when journalists are forthcoming about that. When a journalist's personal biases are plainly stated up front, the reader is actually in a far better position to make up her or his own mind about what she or he is reading, than when those biases are hidden under a veil of "objectivity." How many Americans, for example, would have bought the lies about WMDs in Iraq if they had been told up front that the "journalists" pushing for this were in the employ of oil magnates and the world's largest weapons manufacturers? Few indeed. And that's why they were not told. That's why "objectivity" is such a useful myth.

Everyone must speak what they know ...however they know how!

18.May.2005 12:03

loveandtruth

link

This is a quote written above:

"I find it somewhat disturbing that some on this board profess anyone can be a "journalist". Journalism is supposed to be objective, the point is to provide unbiased information and facts so the reader can make an informed opinion about the events and the world around her/him.
Many of the writers on this board promote their own type of propaganda, I won't call it information or new because too few provide sources, or credible facts (i.e., backed up somewhere) to make legitimate points. Much of what I read on here could kindly be called essays."

This is my response:

You are right journalism is supposed to be objective... furthermore journalists are supposed to show the whole story and expose the truth. However, none of the so-called "journalists" that you speak of are actually doing their job "objectively." Journalists are controlled by their bosses, the bosses by the networks, the networks by corporations, politicians, and the FCC. Today's journalism is completely controlled by those in power... So if the people who are supposed to be exposing the truth are not doing there job... then everyone else must reach out and fill in the gaps where ever they can. Even if one has to do it in an "essay" format... they need to do it! This may be the only way to get the actual truth. All of the people who are aquiring all of the journalist skills that you speak of... are all of the same people who will not sacrifice their jobs and all the $ they have spent on their education in order to expose what the media in our society is actually doing. Who can blame them... after spending $40,000 on an education... usually one wants to earn something from that field that they have just dedicated their lives to. If they speak up about what they have learned... then they will never work in that field again. The point where it becomes the
Individual journalist's fault is when they choose to value $ and therefore their own greed and selfishness over the lives of other people around the world that are being killed at the hands of the lies that our media portrays to our society.

So I do not know anything of you or your education in journalism or of your current working status. But I feel it is wrong of you to discourage others of speaking the truth from their heart. I have had some of my education in journalism and I choose to serve people at a local restaurant for a living, regardless of being $40,000 in debt and having a family to support, and to expose truth wherever I can... . JUST HOW ALL JOURNALISTS WHO ACTUALLY WANT TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE SHOULD BE!!

response to CatWoman

18.May.2005 14:08

NY IMC writer

link

CatWoman accuses me of lacking imagination because I can't see how to do good journalism without money. Well, the tools for doing and disseminating journalism cost money. Printing newspapers costs money. Computers cost money. Internet access costs money. Telephones cost money.
Equally, if not more important, I (and the other NY IMC people) could be doing much better work if we could afford to do the Indypendent (our newspaper) full-time, instead of burning up our limited spare time and energy doing it on top of our day jobs. Good journalism takes a lot of legwork, going out to different communities and talking to different people. I would love to be going to court to cover the RNC trials, or out in the boroughs to cover housing stories and tenant organizing. I can only take so much time off work.
Working people deserve to make a living. "Fuck capitalism, dumpster dive" might work temporarily for 21-year-old middle-class dropouts, but not for people with kids, or people who've been poor and are sick of it. And having health insurance becomes a lot more important when you've had chronic or potentially lethal medical problems. Even squatting costs money, unless you want to piss in a plastic bucket for the rest of your life. The need for money, to survive and live with some amount of comfort in a capitalist society, is a reality I hate--that's part of why I do radical journalism--but it's not a reality I can afford to ignore, especially in New York City.
As for "professionalism": Journalism isn't as specialized a field as medicine, but it's not blogging, shooting off your mouth based on information from second-hand sources. A good journalist should be able to 1) write and report well enough to tell the story clearly and vividly; 2) get the SPECIFIC facts straight (you'd be surprised at how many people screw this up); and 3) understand enough of the history and context of their subject to know what they're talking about (you'd be surprised at how ignorant the so-called "professional" corporate media can be on this).
It's not some mystical secret knowledge inaccessible to ordinary folk, but it is something that people do better with experience and talent.

To NY IMC writer (again)

18.May.2005 15:03

CatWoman

link

I'm not so much accusing you, NY, as praying you pull yourself out of this stupor. It may interest you to know that I'm no "21-year-old middle-class dropout," and yet I can envision a new way. You say that "people with kids, or people who have been poor and are sick of it," will identify with your insistence on pursuing the capitalist model of media reform. In fact, I am a mother, and I have been poor. I know exactly what it's like to be forced to make the compromises one must make in order to feed and shelter one's young. I know what it's like to wonder how you're going to put food on the table, and to know you have to anyway. And I still disagree with you that independent media must pursue financial solutions to the systemic disease of corporate media.

You're still missing the point, NY. Yes, good journalism takes a lot of time and effort. But YOU do not have to be doing it. That's what open publishing is about. That's what makes us stronger than the corporate media. We may not have all the shiny new gadgets and the dopplar radar systems, but we have each other. And that, my friend, is everything. There are more of us than there are of them, and we are everywhere. Remember?

More later on why media from the heart is worth so much more than media for a paycheck. But I am in a hurry now.

some responses

18.May.2005 15:17

media activist residing in pdx

link

"Journalism is supposed to be objective, the point is to provide unbiased information and facts so the reader can make an informed opinion about the events and the world around her/him."

If this is the case then I would argue that journalism has never existed (and I would suggest that no one can provice an example of unbiased journalism). Objectivity is a lie. Humans are not objective; they are shaped by their experiences and can only relate their experiences through their subjective mind. Anyone who is claiming to be objective has lost my trust because that claim is a lie. There are better goals than objectivity: honesty is the one that I strive for. I think the journalism should be honest, especially about the fact that journalists are not capable of providing unbiased information.

"CatWoman accuses me of lacking imagination because I can't see how to do good journalism without money. Well, the tools for doing and disseminating journalism cost money."

I tend to agree with her accessment. If one is finding that certain tools and techniques cost money one should examine whether there are better strategies to get those tools or other ways to accomplish one's goals.

"Printing newspapers costs money."

Only if you're constrained to print "newspapers". If you instead choose 8.5x11 you could get all your printing for free.

"Computers cost money."

Not in portland, and not in new york. I know of several ny corporations that would trash their computers every 2 years. Easy dumpster pickings for 2 year old computers and I can't believe much has changed. And if there isn't a freegeek equivalent in ny than there should be. Of course, you could also get a grant from freegeek for free computers but I suspect with a little imagination you could get all the computers you could ever need.

"Internet access costs money."

I'm writing this using free internet access. Paying for internet access is quickly becoming obsolete.

"Telephones cost money."

And voip is quickly challenging that. And let's be honest, phones don't cost much.

And those are just off the top of my head. With a little thought and a focus on what these tools are trying to achieve rather than particular solutions I can imagine even better solutions can be found.

"Also, the problem with developing independent, community media strong enough to counter corporate media is financial."

Portland indymedia is doing just fine countering corporate media without any financial "problems". By empowering people to write and contribute the coverage grows without costing a cent.

"If we were going to get a reporter on the ground in Iraq to cover the war there, we'd need to pay their planefare, get them a place to live, and give them enough money to get around and the communications gear to send their stories back. That's not cheap."

I think CatWoman responded to this pretty well but it really needs to be examined further. First, who are "we". There have been several independent journalists who have chosen to go to Iraq to report on what was happening there. I don't see any need for "we" (whoever "we" are) to pay for them. I simply try to tell people that express interest in reporting on Iraq that if they want to travel there and report there are means to do that.

Also, I feel this is somewhat of a strawman or there is a disconnect between understandings of indymedia. I don't want to report on Iraq. I don't care much about reports from Iraq on local indymedia sites. The idea of local independent media is people in an area are the most qualified to report on events in that area. As CatWoman pointed out, those best equipped to cover events in Iraq are Iraqis. Those in Iraq who wish to report on what is happening in their country need to be empowered to do so.

But there is something else that bothers me about using Iraq as an example of "needing money". It shows that the corporate media is still dictating the agenda, even for indymedia sites when it should be the other way around (as has often happened in portland with portland imc covering stories and the corporate media later picking up on them). Why should there be a focus on events in Iraq? Those events really don't affect me that much. Focusing time and attention there would simply prevent me from putting that time and attention to local issues which are not being reported nor effectively resolved.

Understanding what is happening in Iraq is largely academic, and there is a place for that (I do read the Iraqi bloggers from time to time). But that understanding does not seem to translate to local activities to build better communities. The purpose for my involvement in indymedia is to be an effective for positive change in the community. I don't see sending "indymedia reporters" to Iraq as serving that goal.

"Even at the local level, we could do much better stories if we had the time to work on them full-time, instead of just scamming time off from our day jobs."

Sure, time is different than money and I do not equate the two. I too feel like I would like to more time into indymedia and so I am going to work less at my day job. Will that mean less money? Maybe, maybe-not, but if so I really don't care. I feel empowered by making a choice of how I will spend my time. I will not let my "day job" dictate to me how I will live me life.

Remember what is said about "the master's tools". I do not think that choosing the tools of corporate power will be effective at fighting corporate power. Sharing skills with different tools, tools that are accessible to all, is the surest path to the demise of media corporations.

One might ask the question: "what is alternative media?"

Is it those doing the same thing as the corporate media, trying to raise money, wanting to send reporters to other places rather than focusing on their own communities, trying to portray their professionalism?

Or is it those who are trying to do something different than the corporate media by showing how people can report without money or other resources, focusing on local issues, and showing that you don't need a degree or a list of accomplishments to make a meaningful contribution.

Is it better to compete with the corporate media or act in a way that forces them to compete?

Is indymedia (and other alternative media) to be an alternative in form or function?

CatWoman, loveandtruth

18.May.2005 15:22

good points made

link

loveandtruth, you wrote "However, none of the so-called "journalists" that you speak of are actually doing their job "objectively." Journalists are controlled by their bosses, the bosses by the networks, the networks by corporations, politicians, and the FCC." - I never spoke of any particular journalist, only what a journalist should be striving for. And even those here on this board (site, whatever) are controlled somewhat by the persons running it. There are some things you are not allowed to post on here.

And how do you know everyone with a Journalism degree is working for a corporate outlet? Many freelance, work for independent media outlets, or start their own papers and public access shows.

Nor did I discourage people from speaking out, I just disagree with calling these people "journalists". While "CatWoman" is right - true objectivity is almost always an unobtainable goal - it is a goal we must all strive for when providing "news" as opposed to "opinion". "News" is the telling of facts of events, persons, the government, etc...

"CatWoman", you criticize journalism as being inherently biased, yet all the examples you provide are those of corporate media, and we all know there's inherent bias there. Not to lame out, but I don't particularly pay attention to individual journalists, I pay attention to stories - those that provide points of view, facts, and sources that I can validate on my own. And as stated above, I agree there is no true objectivity, but we can try to get as close as we can.

One way is to look for different sources of the same story. Your assertion that an Iraqi would give us news of Iraq doesn't entirely satisfy my need to information. I want an outsider's view as well. I enjoy reading Asian and British coverage of US events, etc..

I appreciate wanting to empower people to speak out and use their voices and be heard. But there are many different ways to do that. There are many people out there that I would not trust to provide me with information to make important decisions about my life, my community, my environment. I imagine they exist for you as well.

On the Rotting Corpse of Objectivity

18.May.2005 16:24

Wild Green

link

Indyista, I absolutely agree.

Anonymous listed as, "good points made" said, "I find it somewhat disturbing that some on this board profess anyone can be a "journalist". Journalism is supposed to be objective, the point is to provide unbiased information and facts so the reader can make an informed opinion about the events and the world around her/him."

Objectivity is dead, it is not good science nor is it good journalism. Any person, "journalist" or not, who purports to be objective is deluding oneself. Typically it is those "journalists" who are backed by a corporation or the government who beat their chests about their professed "objectivity".

An excellent summary of my point can be found in the article, "The God of Objectivity Is Dead"* by Jack Shafer:

"Included in the baggage that most journalists bring to their work is an ideological predisposition. There are those who believe it is possible for a journalist to purge herself of all opinion about the world before showing up for work every day. I am not one of them. The test of a good journalist, like a good scientist, is not whether she has a predisposition but whether she is willing to abandon or modify it on the basis of evidence and argument."

"One difference, however, between scientists and journalists is that scientists lay bare their hypotheses and predispositions before they test them. By contrast, even very good journalists cling to the pretense that if they refuse to reveal their predispositions, this means they don't have any."

Complete Article:

http://slate.msn.com/id/1006426/

"Media critics such as Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky have described a propaganda model which they use to show how in practice such a notion of objectivity ends up heavily favoring the viewpoint of those in power, namely the government and powerful corporations." See Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28journalism%29

Similar articles:

Columbia Journalism Review, "Re-thinking Objectivity":

http://www.cjr.org/issues/2003/4/objective-cunningham.asp

* I just found that article after searching for the term "objectivity is dead".

how many times must it be said

18.May.2005 16:54

objectivity is a lie

link

"true objectivity is almost always an unobtainable goal"

Always, not almost always. And since it iss unobtainale why strive for it? Why continue to push this myth instead of simply recognizing the truth that humans are biased?

"it is a goal we must all strive for when providing "news" as opposed to "opinion". "News" is the telling of facts of events, persons, the government, etc..."

Which facts? Who decides which facts are important and worth reporting? Who decides whether to leave certain facts out to suite their agenda? Isn't what's important to report just someone's opinion? Of course it is. Wouldn't it be better to have the reporter straight out tell you what they think or feel rather than trying to spend time figuring out what their "spin" is? I would prefer that. I would also prefer that people not lie to me by claiming to be objective. Of course, there are always those who would prefer to believe the myth, and that's who the corporate media is for, those who would prefer to be lied to because it's what they're used to and comfortable with.

Does anyone remember Lindorff's recent piece quoting Ernie Pyle? If you haven't read it check it out here:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/316770.shtml

Or read the full piece here:

http://www.britannica.com/normandy/pri/Q00234.html

Ernie writes of Normandy after D-Day, "It was a lovely day for strolling along the seashore. Men were sleeping on the sand, some of them sleeping forever. Men were floating in the water, but they didn't know they were in the water, for they were dead."

Is that objective? No. Is it good journalism? Yes. So what makes it good? And what can be learned from that and other good journalism for journalists to strive for. Off the top of my head I'd say it's honest reporting, it's clear, it's compelling, the author's thoughts and beliefs of the event, though more complex then one might expect, are evident, and it says something and has an impact.

So instead of repeating endlessly how journalists need to be machines trying to take in all data and regurgitate it unaltered to an audience why don't we push journalists toward higher ideals: honesty, comprehensiveness, clarity, effectiveness, compelling writing, and humanity.

And I'm sure there are many more goals worthy of working toward. But leave the claim of objectivity to the liars who want you to think the opinions they present are "fact" or "truth".

Why strive for objectivity?

18.May.2005 17:22

good points made

link

Why strive for truth? Why strive for realism? Because it's what we base our thoughts and opinions about the world around us on, or at least I do.

Objectivity: The state or quality of being objective.

Objective:
1. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.
2. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

Definition 1 - probably never completely obtainable by humankind
Definition 2 - completely within ones grasp

Your snippet of story, "objectivity is a lie", was indeed well-written. However, once again, that's not a news piece, it's prose. Does it tell a story about an actual event? Yes, but it's not reporting news.

There's opinion and there's fact. Both are valuable, but one should have minimal presence in news, in my opinion. If you disagree, fine. But for those who want to impose your world view on everyone else, you're just another type of conglomerate, attempting to dominate society with your value system.

Media from the Heart

18.May.2005 18:11

CatWoman

link

It sounds to me like NY IMC writer is veering toward the subject of payment for indymedia work. This creeps me out. While there have been some notable examples of people falling down into this trap, I believe most imcistas are not in favor of such a proposal. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, though, so let me speak plainly.

Money changes everything. Capitalism exerts a powerful and destructive force all its own, and we cannot fight it from within. We have to go around it. We have to use creativity and imagination and will. We have to use our hearts. That is how to create real independent media. When you do something for a paycheck, you have a completely different relationship to it than when you do it for love. Ask any prostitute. Money can make you say things you don't mean, compromise things you believe in, and ignore things you should be paying attention to. It's an addiction, and like any addiction, it can take you down before you know what hit you.

Media from the heart, on the other hand, is pure. The many, many people who tell their stories here on this site, and in indymedia videos, and on web radio, do so with integrity. They are sharing their strength and energy with each other, and they're doing it because it is work they believe in, and they believe in what they are saying. This is revolutionary media. It is not for sale to the highest bidder, and it is uncompromising in the best sense of the word. There are no commercials here, because the audience is not for sale either. There are no strings attached.

When you ask to get paid for doing indymedia work, you're opening a jagged, rusty, tetanus-infested can of worms. You're sliding down that slippery slope toward compromise and mediocrity. You're selling out. More than that, you're placing a monetary value on something that can only be cheapened by the effort. How much is your integrity worth? And what will you tell contributors to the site, when they want to know why you're getting paid but they are not? Payment for media activist work opens up a hierarchy that stinks of the corporate model. This is just not the place for it, in my opinion. Asking for money changes you from a comrade-in-arms with other activists in the community and turns you into a parasite. Will you share the wages you make with the people whose stories you tell? No? Then why should they want to share their stories with you? Your motives become suspect, and people naturally begin to question what's in it for them. It's a contagious and self-sustaining disease. Please, let us not go there.

I do not pretend to be immune from the pressures of capitalism on the realities of the day. I, too, have to pay the bills, have to put food on the table. I, too, must make compromises with the proverbial "day job." That does not mean my ideals, my work as an activist, my friends, or my very voice are for sale. They are not. Activism is different than work, it is a calling. To take money for indymedia work seems inherently dirty to me. I thank God this has never been an issue in Portland.

Again, I say I cannot speak for everyone. But indymedia, to me, is about freeing ourselves. The stories one can find here are the blood and sweat of the resistance, life itself. To sell these things seems unfathomable. I'm dismayed that anyone would try. There is a Truth here that simply and utterly transcends any pricetag you could name. This work is a gift we all give to each other, and I would never want to see anyone try to ask for compensation for sharing in this gift. I'm not asking anyone to do anything that I'm not willing to do. I work long, gruelling hours on indy videos, and I do not begrudge that time. Similarly, there are any number of other people who are willing to tell their stories and put in the necessary work without degrading it by seeking financial reward for it. Leave that to the day job. That's what it's for. This, on the other hand, is a calling. If you are not feeling the call, then perhaps you need to explore one of the countless venues for paid media work. God knows there are enough of those. Perhaps this is not for you. In that event, step aside, and let the millions of people willing to give from their hearts take on the indy work. Your shoes will be filled before your scent has left them.

reply

18.May.2005 23:07

PDX Dragon

link

"Also, the problem with developing independent, community media strong enough to counter corporate media is financial. If we were going to get a reporter on the ground in Iraq to cover the war there, we'd need to pay their planefare, get them a place to live, and give them enough money to get around and the communications gear to send their stories back. That's not cheap.
Even at the local level, we could do much better stories if we had the time to work on them full-time, instead of just scamming time off from our day jobs.

There's a difference between radical journalism and radical-politics blogging."

The issue isn't financial. It is passionate people's involvement.

I am tired of this elitist attitude that relegates average people communicating as "bloggers" as if that is some lower form, beneath the lofty sphere of the journalist. Fuck that! These so lowly bloggers have done a better job of presenting information and truth than the entire journalistic machine of corporate media across the U.S. ! and this is including the leftist alternate commercial media as well.

No, I know what I smell. I smell a desire to retain a lofty position as a "journalist" so one can profit off of it! There is a conflict of interest in empowering people to tell their stories because that would reduce the chance to retain a paid position.

Newsflash - indymedia is about the business of putting the journalist out of business. As if they are some priest who is needed as a go between between people and god, only in this case, it is as a go between between people and other people. People can tell their own stories just fine when they have a chance and can find their own voice.

Beware the person who tells you that you need them as a go between and who profits from it! Journalism is an ingrown institution, generally fixed in pattern. Concerned about their own self image and standing. That is one reason for the dogma of objectivity, because it fosters the pattern of content provider and consumer which is necessary for the paycheck. It subtly keeps people in the passive role.

I just went and quickly read the past 4 issues of the Indypendent. Good articles, well produced, good photos and graphics. It is really an impressive publication and accomplishment. Still, I cannot but notice the aloof objectiveness of it. Like many professional publications, it invites one to sit over coffee and read it. It does not invite the person to stand up and act.

I remember a conference I attended. Amy Goodman was the keynote speaker that evening. Before her, Mario Africa was speaking. Mario was so immediate, visceral and earthy. When he was done, I could feel the whole room ready to jump up and do something. Then Amy Goodman spoke, and that energy diminished. By the time she was done, the crowd was entertained, but not having the passionate impulse to action. To me this points towards the difference between speaking as a person and speaking as a journalist. I think the most important characteristic is lost when submitting to the cult of professionalism and objectivity.

With the major commercial media, they are dealers, and slickly packaged information is the drug they are selling. And millions of people get their fix every day. If people have all this great information in their minds, but use it as a distraction as they go about feeding the status quo with their labor and energy, then is that really of benefit?

Just giving good info is not enough. The provider/consumer matrix itself needs to be seen for what it is and stepped away from. This is where indymedia (in the broad sense) is so valuable.

so if there's no such thing as objectivity. . .

19.May.2005 11:07

then why the fuck do anything?

link

to the extent that corporate media distorts the truth to serve its own interests, then it is not actually practicing objectivity, according to any definition of the term i have seen. blame corporations for acting ruthlessly in their own interests, not the concept of objectivity. if there's no objective reality, then there's no need for you to piss and moan about them not reporting on it correctly, because it doesn't exist! another thing i'm fucking sick of: this idea that someone's "earthiness" meaning that they have the answers. charismatic people are just as fallible as weird and dorky and boring people, even if they are more fun to be around.

I'll say this slooowwwly for you:

19.May.2005 14:23

There is no such thing as objectivity.

link

Reporting on something "correctly" does not mean pretending to be objective. On the contrary, it means NOT pretending to be objective. That is how the corporate media operates. They spin every story in a manner that supports the corporate police state, and then they pretend that was the Objective Truth (booming God-voice here). They tell lies, distort the truth, leave out important facts, and pretend they're not doing it to support their masters' agenda.

It might bother you, but it's a fact. Objectivity does not exist. It's a lie. A myth. A distortion of fact. It's shaking your beliefs, and those beliefs have been carefully nurtured by the corporate media all your life. But the fact still remains: No such thing as objectivity.

So, why bother, you ask? Because journalism is MUCH more than "objectivity." Everything we know about the world around us is born in the stories we tell about it. It's how we interact with the universe. Just because something is not objective does not make it a lie. On the contrary. Words spoken from the heart, from the chemistry between facts and belief, are all we ever really have. That's the crime of the corporate media: They hijack that chemistry. They tell us things that are intentionally false. WMDs in Iraq, for example, were an intentional falsehood that any real journalist would have uncovered. And journalists here in indymedia SCREAMED that there were no WMDs in Iraq. But enough people sat glued to their corporate tv stations to believe just enough to allow a war over something that was only a story. An intentionally false story.

There are facts, and then there is what we do with them. It is here that the myth of objectivity breaks down. But the corporate media does not merely interpret facts its own way. No, the corporate media lies. They change the facts to suit the story they are paid to tell. And they do it on purpose. And then they tell you that you must believe them, and only them, because they are Objective. And THAT is why to bother.

Dont hate the media - KILL the media.

20.May.2005 06:37

professor-rat

link

More and more people are attacking and burning the squalid sat-trucks of the corporate media where-ever and when ever they are found and once upon a time this might have been spun as some sort of attack on ' freedom of speech' The internet changes all that. Nevermore can such spin can be made so today I follow the common people as any humble social revolutionary should and join the call for the deconstruction of the military/ entertainment complex - by any meme's necessary.

' Don't hate the media - KILL the media.'

more

20.May.2005 06:45

researcher

link

here is a reportback and pictures from sandiego imc:

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/108954.shtml

Way to GO san diego!

20.May.2005 09:10

And "researcher"

link

And...who's that handsome guy in the foreground, second picture down, anyway? Hey, there he is again, with a laptop. Oh! and again and again.

regarding Mario Africa

25.May.2005 00:37

link

If you think back, you may find that everytime you have heard somebody like Mario Africa, he has been followed and smothered by somebody like Amy Goodman.

On the stage, it is called a warm-up act. It is intended to get you jumping, so the main act doesn't need to work so hard to get your attention.

So Amy sounds better than she is. So you go away thinking you have heard something exciting. But you are not quite sure what. Nor from whom.

And nobody jumps up and does anything.

add a comment on this article

regions

topic pages

genres

actions

resources

global imcnetwork:

National Conference on Media Reform Reportback

global imc
network: