Why have IMC editors pulled 'Latest Comments '? : Houston Indymedia

Despite the fact that the comments area is often used for derisive, personal attacks, It is paramount that there be an open spot for dialogue and for users to easily find feedback.
Editors, please bring back the "latest Comments' .

i don't get it? are you trying to say that IMC is similar to a bad tupac film?

We recently had a meeting of website editors where we talked about a number of things including how we feel the mission of Houston Indymedia is much more related to fostering grassroots journalism than giving people a place to call each other names and attack peoples work. We have long entertained hiding the view latest comments link and decided this would be a good idea. I have noticed much less spam/flaming than usual in the week since we have done this.

We are willing to open this disscussion up at one of our monthly open meeting that takes place the first Saturday of every month at Sedition Books. That said, I feel like most of us that have to do the work of dealing with comments feel pretty good about this decision.

Are the IMC editors innocent of flaming and pushing personal beefs? Heck no. Just last week they decided to bump up and feature a post about a DuaneBradley/Ken Freeland beef at KPFT. Whereas several important articles rode the bottom of the page (including a 4 day tribute to Iraq war victims), they gave this thread a spotlight. Don't act like you are against that kinda junk for a minute.

Also, Though pulling the comments section diminshes your workload, it both obstructs the dissemination of info and makes people less likely to post. Every time I post, I review the thread multiple times to see whether there is a question (especially if it is related to an event ) or to respond to any scurrilous accusation. Pulling the comments makes it harder to find these threads once their time has elapsed on main page. Also, despite the editors objections to what you call flaming posts, there is often valid debate despite name calling.

Most importantly, the editors have pulled this section from the site without any feedback from the public. I guess the editors can remove what they like despite users wishes...

Write us an email, come to one of our meetings, If you know any of the folks who are editors, give them a call. Moderating stuff on the internet is kind of a vaccum, it's hard to tell when we do anything people appreciate or when we do stuff people dont like. We are all volunteers and have jobs and school and kids and do our best to moderate promptly and accuratly, but we can't always do that.

Unlike IMC's like Portland or NYC, there has never been much of a precence from progressives in the comment section, mostly trolls and pharmaceutical companies.

Indymedia has an agenda just like most groups and press organizations. Most media's agenda is to make money for their shareholders, ours is to provide a space for social and economic justice oriented news. We decided that a "View Latest Comments" page was not usefull in that mission. Unlike most media organizations we would love for you to come to our meetings and talk about your ideas and vision for the site.

Anyway's those are some of my thoughts. I'm glad to see people's reactions to this change in the website.

It is much better to have a comments section that is monitored and edited as opposed to just ditching the whole thing. It may take more work......Also, the comments section was the ONLy part of imc site that was decided by users as to where it sat in article 'hierarchy'...

it seems like you are saying that there are no more comments on this site, but here i am making one.

the coments section is gone einstein

This is just a preview of what would happen if the 'very left' were to take control of this country. It would be just a matter of time before the new elite decided what is and isn't 'necessary'. If you believe the media is controlled now, you would be amazed, and then immediately silenced, once the 'very left' took over.

Unfortunately, the far 'left' quashes dialogue as well as anyone else. Though their intentions may be good, the road to hell is paved with good intentions...

Dialogue is not being quashed. You can dialogue all you want in literally millions of places of places, both online and off. You cannot, however, reasonably expect Indymedia to pay for your bandwidth if you are going to use it to attack Indymedia, IMCistas, the Global Justice Movement or our values and ideals. It's time for the racists, warmongers, homophobes, misogynists, and apologists for exploitation and ecocide to stop freeloading and pay for their own bandwidth.

Indymedia can never be a credible source of information, and also be a hands off, anything goes, free for all. They are mutually preclusive. As long as Indymedia publishes disinformation, enemy propaganda, advertising, porn and flame wars, it will continue to be a joke in the journalistic community. It's time to decide what we want Indymedia to be, a credible source of information, or a joke. If we want it to be a credible source of information, we are going to have to take out the trash. There is no other way.

Indymedia is at a critical juncture in it's development. Either it learns to employ even the most basic, minimum standards of journalism or it will never be credible. That means it will never live up to its enormous potential. It will remain in the rut it's in now until, one by one those volunteers who recognize the virtue and necessity of credibility, lose faith, abandon hope and drift away. When enough of them have gone, Indymedia, at least as we know it, will die.

That would be a great shame, for with just a little more work and care, Indymedia could seriously compete with the ubiquitous propaganda mill of the corporate-government complex, for the hearts and minds of the news hungry public. If it can't do that, it's a failure, and should be abandoned in favor of something that does work.

1. "If we want it to be a credible source of information, we are going to have to take out the trash." - You'll find that more and more information sources in the "journalistic community" have feedback or comment sections.

2. "stop freeloading and pay for their own bandwidth" - If you had a clue about the web, you'd know how ridiculous this statement is. If bandwidth were an actual concern, all you would have to do is eliminate the photo upload ablility in 'Latest Comments' section. Reading these pages and uploading text basically take next to no bandwidth unless your servers are connected via dialup.

3. "our values and ideals" -You'll never be 'credible' or 'legitimate' if you have a hands off approach to the postings of anyone who agrees with you or bashes and name calls the people you hate while deleting the dialogue of those who disagree and want to debate the facts. By all means have a posting standards guide and delete what violates it, but do it on both sides and not only the side that disagree with you. How seriously do you think "666 Bush Devil Hitler Oil Brigade" makes you look to the 'credible and legitimate journalistic community'? Did it make sense to leave that posted and delete my synopsis of environmental issues involving immigration?

It's your clubhouse, and you can do whatever you want., but don't pretend your some fair-minded organization trying to allow independant media. If you have a political and social agenda based on socialism and you only want things posted that support it, just say so and don't pretend to be about something you're not.

we need a network wide editorial policy:

https://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/BasicEditorialPolicy

(snip)

If Indymedia cannot consensus to ban fascist propaganda, and enemy propaganda in general, then its credibility in this world will be nil, and it’s very reason for existing will have been negated. This is precisely the goal of at least some of the people who are currently abusing Indymedia’s hospitality. If they are permitted to succeed, not only will Indymedia be doomed, but the entire Global Justice Movement will suffer, and with it our planet, and untold generations of her people.

This is not an acceptable option. Ergo, those IMC locals which insist on discrediting Indymedia, should be expelled by those of us who do consense. This should be done at the DNS level. If you are going to use our name and logo, you must not discredit them. If you discredit them, you must not be allowed to use our name and logo.

This may sound harsh, but it the political reality of the situation. If, for example, you allow Nazi propaganda to be published under your name and logo, people will naturally assume that you are a supporter of Nazism. They will be right, and nothing else you say will be taken seriously, ever again, by anybody who knows, not even the Nazis themselves.

In journalism, credibility is everything. Unless we can successfully defend our credibility, Indymedia will fail at its most basic mission, and all the work we have put into it will have been for nothing. The fascists must be driven out, so must the racists, war mongers, homophobes, misogynists, colonialists, and apologists for exploitation, ecocide, and torture, and anyone who defends them. Speech is free, bandwidth is not. That these miscreants be required to provide their own bandwirth is not an infringement of their freedom of speech. It is an affirmation of our own.

-- nessie - 31 May 2004

(snip)

"and enemy propaganda"

See, you view people who disagree with you as your "enemy".

"Ban the enemy", I guess that pretty much sums up your true feelings and philosophy. This is exactly why communism fails over and over. You view people who think or believe differently as the "enemy" and want to remove them from society.

Stalin would be proud.

I disagree with racists, warmongers, homophobes, misogynists, and apologists for exploitation and ecocide. If you agree with these people, then you are the enemy, too.

There are two sides to the struggle, the oppressors and the oppressed. Pick one. There's no third option. You can't be neutral on a moving train.

this:

http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2007/01/82392.shtml

Do you consider countries and people observing Sharia Law to be your enemy?

(I'll bet this never gets answered)

You obviously don't believe a word you say; otherwise, you'd be your own enemy. Do you know how many ways the environment is damaged by the production of the computer you are using?

As you would say, "There are two sides to the struggle, the oppressors and the oppressed. Pick one. There's no third option. You can't be neutral on a moving train."

Can we say HYPOCRITE?

ROFLMAO

Right here is the reason they want editors to delete posts like mine, because I'll reveal the truth and hold the mirror in front of you.

.....the only thing that matters to faceless,namelss,anonymous lefty nonentities like 'wrong' is to feel good about their own moral superiority.to compensate for their own political impotence....so 'wrong' creates this little paridigm for himself wherein everyone who isnt as blind queer for Karl Marx as he is, is an 'oppressor', or 'racist' or 'warmongers' or 'misogynists' or 'homophobes' or whatever the epithet of the week is...."a tale told by an idiot,full of sound and fury,signifying nothing"

Why is Indymedia providing these guys with a soapbox?

.....out of the goodness of their hearts

lend assistance to apologists for evil.

......but then sarcasm just goes right by some people

Just Wondering, do you feel that Bush should be negotiating with Iran and Syria?

When you're blinded by hatred, like so many on the left are, you tend to not see very much, including sarcasm.

you *are* evil.

Or else, you're stupid. It's one or the other. There's no middle ground.

Is that kind of like when Bush said "You're either with us or against us."

I didn't know you were a Bush fan.

BTW, what have I EVER said on this board that makes you feel I am not against evil?

Oh, and nice dodge on not answering the question earlier.

It doesn't matter what Bush does, He's only a front man. he doesn't run the government. The government doesn't run the country. Corporations run the country. Corporations run the world.

>Is that kind of like when Bush said "You're either with us or against us."

No. That would be a false analogy. "Us" defines a group of people. "Evil" defines a moral quality.

>I didn't know you were a Bush fan.

This is kindergarten logic. This guy should grow up already.

The 'oppressor or oppressed' concept is really a dangerous, slippery slope. Often times, the oppressor was the oppressed, ie. the Israelis. Or sometimes the oppressor is the is the oppressed ie. French Revolution, Iranian Revolution. Or sometimes their are legions or brain-numbed apathetic bystanders who hold no hate in their hearts but are too lazy to get of the couch-people ie. here in America.....

By the way, who is the infallible judge of exactly who the enemy is? Can they teach me their secrets of spiritual perfection or have they already transcended physical form and reformed into a ball of light?

If evil is so cut and dry and you're either against evil or not, no middle ground, then can you please answer this question.

Do you consider countries and people observing Sharia Law to be your enemy?

If he wants to talk about Sharia, the aptly named "Rancid" should start a thread, preferably on his own website. This thread is about Indymedia's editorial policies. His attempts to change the subject are disruptive. It's bad politics and worse journalism to permit Indymedia's enemies to disrupt its mission, which is to provide a credible alternative to the ubiquitous propaganda mill of the corporate-government complex.

Sorry, but you moved the topic this way with you're statement, "There are two sides to the struggle, the oppressors and the oppressed. Pick one. There's no third option. You can't be neutral on a moving train."

You just don't want to answer my question and try to say it's off-topic because you know that once I prove your assumption of be false, then your argument of only leaving posts that are "on the correct side" falls apart.

I set an obvious trap right down the center of the path you are following, and now you're trying, but failing, to dance around it.

another falsehood
by lies, and the lying liars who tell them Monday, Feb. 05, 2007 at 2:07 PM

>but you moved the topic this way with you're statement, "There are two sides to the struggle, the oppressors and the oppressed. Pick one. There's no third option. You can't be neutral on a moving train."

He's lying. This is not just on topic, it *is* the topic.

Indymedia is on side of the oppressed, whoever and wherever they may be. At least that's the theory. In practice, we do a very poor job of it, primarily because our incoherent editorial policy, and its inconsistent application, allows oppressors and their apologists to use Indymedia bandwidth to promote oppression, both overtly, by publishing pro-oppressor propaganda, and covertly, by publishing disinformation, advertisements, gibberish and porn. Disinformation, advertisements, gibberish and porn discredit Indymedia. They makes us look like we don't care whether what we publish is true or not, constructive or not, or even if it's relative to the topic at hand. It also disrupts any attempt to focus.

Attempts to disrupt our focus is every bit as much an act of psychological warfare as is the publishing of lies in our name to make people think we can't be trusted to tell the truth. When people try to use Indymedia to discuss topics that our enemies don't want us to think about, they flood the thread to make it unusable. When editors are inconsistent and/or lackadaisical , the thread does in fact become difficult, if not impossible, to use. This tactic is particularly effective as it is a class based form or oppression. People who can only afford dialup connections are the ones who are most severely impacted.

Here's a typical example:

http://maritimes.indymedia.org/news/2006/12/14541_comment.php

Why do the enemies of the Global Justice Movement wish to disrupt our focus? The answer is simple. People who are unfocused are easily confused. People who are confused are more easily oppressed. As Steven Biko so succinctly put it, "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed."

That's why psychological warfare that confuses us is every bit as effective means of oppression as guns, chains, and spycams. A case can be made that it is, in fact, more effective. It is far wider reaching, and far more cost effective, especially when the internet is employed.

When the oppressors use the internet to sow confusion, delusion and mistrust among us, it is an act of war. When the editors of sites like Indymedia permit them to do so, it is an act of collaboration. When you collaborate with the oppressors, who are one.

I didn't realize I had so much power over you.

Should have read "you are one."

Does anyone else find it ironic that the people on this board complain that compaines like Haliburton refuse to debate them, yet HIMC has the same kind of "we won't tolerate any outside views" policy.

Where? Cite the URL.

>people on this board

include Rancid, who apparently can't tell one individual from another.

(I wrote this as a comment on an article I made and am dealing again with comments from Rancid, it fits in with this discussion so I thought I;d put it here)

"We intend to illuminate and analyze issues" means we encourage people to publish grassroots reporting on social justice issues and provide analysis, it does not mean that we are looking for people to write combative, hostile or unrelated comments on their work. If you want to do grassroots reporting on social justice issues, there would be something to talk about, but flamebait comments are clearly not part of the Indymedia mission.

As your your request for other sites indicates, nobody lets you do that, The chonicle dosent let you attack their articles in print or online, nor does TV or radio news or most mainstream web news sources. Indymedia lets people publish articles or comments without any editorial filter, but we do have editorial policies, and we prioritize the work of journalists and community members who are publishing over that of people who are destructively critical or off topic to the point of making things confusing.

If we did not have some oversight over what stayed on the sight it be useless because of the difficulty to read it and that it would discourage people from publishing because they fear they would be attacked or have otherwise negative or off topic comments.

Its not our job but a number of corporate news sites have message boards:
http://www.khou.com/forums/
I think the Chon has one

as well an independent stuff like Craig's List
http://houston.craigslist.org/pol/

HoustonFree Press used to but dosent anymore

I am not willing to have this conversation with Rancid anymore on this website, I could be doing media coverage or working or doing something else constructive. If this is somehow unclear, write me an email and try to change my mind, dont hash this out on the website anymore

Rob-
What is great about IMC versus conventional media is the fact that the site can become a vessel for dialogue. That is what makes it different and good. IMC should not try and be more like the chronicle and others but should focus more efforts on allowing dialogue without the derisive shit. Ultimately, it seems more important to allow discussion then let a few ruin it,,,Besides, it it not like IMC editors are innocent of the whole personal beef thing. I love IMC but get disheartened when I see the Duan Bradley/Ken Freeland Beef thread get bumped to a feature and there are worthy articles that are left to squander at the bottom of the page....

By the way, we should have a new message board on our new site next month.

SO please, keep up the good work and bring back the comments and discussion rolling....

http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2007/01/55870_comment.php#56220

Just because dialogue takes place, is not necessarily a good thing. It can be, in the right circumstances. In other circumstances, it is not.

Dialogue has no intrinsic value. It can be productive or counter productive, appropriate or inappropriate, moral or immoral, depending on the particulars of the circumstance.

To be of any value at all, dialogue must be appropriate to the venue in which it is conducted, it must productive, and it must be moral. No dialogue whose purpose is to further evil, can ever be moral. The means cannot be separated from the ends. The means are the ends.

For example, a dialogue about whether or not one race is superior, is inappropriate anywhere, particularly on Indymedia. It is worse than just counter productive, it is immoral. Dialogue with racists is not an appropriate response to racism. Dialogue about how to best end racism is always appropriate, not just here, but anywhere.

Likewise, dialogue about whether or not waging aggressive war is a good idea, is inappropriate on Indymedia. To give the warmongers a soapbox is immoral, as well as counter productive.

So let us not fetishize dialogue, lest we become so deluded that we imagine it to be more important than the presentation of verifiable facts, in a credible alternative to the corporate-government propaganda machine.

Indymedia exists to disseminate truth. Lies have no place here, not in articles, not in commentary, not at all. Anyone who tells us that Indymedia should publish lies, does not have Indymedia's best interests at heart. When they say they do, they're lying.

I wish I was smart enough to co-opt two bit buzz words like 'racist' and 'warmonger' to make myself feel morally superior to the people to whom I gratuituously assign those terms

"Lies have no place here, not in articles, not in commentary, not at all"

Please tell me where the lie is when I ask someone writing about immigration and the border a question like "Do you believe we should have an open border policy?"

I've asked it many times with those exact words, and it has been deleted every time.

Is this question racist or do you just interpret it as such?

You can't find a single racist, homophobic or sexist that I have ever posted, because I never have. I challenge you to find something.

Just because you disagree with it, doesn't make it a lie, hate speech or evil.

Both Stalin and Hitler were very strict on views opposing their own.

I guess that means you just like to speak at people rather with people...Contrary to what you say, dialogue indeed has 'intrinsic value.'

I said no such thing. Stop putting words into my mouth. It's rude. It's dishonest. It's very bad form.

It is also typical of the very kind of intentional disruption that Indymedia need to rid itself of if it is ever to become a positive force in this world.

Dialogue is only of value if it is constructive. When our enemies dialogue about better ways to thwart our ideals and destroy our credibility, it is not constructive. It's destructive. For Indymedia to host such dialogue is self destructive.

The longer we allow these right wingers, racists, sexists, warmongers, et al to pollute IMC's bandwidth with their lies and filth, the longer it will be until Indymedia can be taken seriously as a credible alternative to the corporate-government propaganda mill.

"Dialogue is only of value if it is constructive. When our enemies dialogue about better ways to thwart our ideals and destroy our credibility, it is not constructive. It's destructive. For Indymedia to host such dialogue is self destructive."

Spoken like a true dictator.

An ad hominem is not a rebuttal. It's a way to change the subject.

What these guys want is that IMCistas should actually help them destroy Indymedia's few remaining shreds of credibility. Is that what we want to do? i don't think so.

More like you performed it before:

"you *are* evil.

Or else, you're stupid. It's one or the other. There's no middle ground."

But that is the typical HIMC 'do what we say, not as we do" mentality.

Unless you think I have a right to let me into your house and decorate it as I see fit; spraypaint your walls, poop in your bathtub, you have got to acknowledge that were are not going to just allow people who dont support the mission of social and economic justice and grassroots reporting to come onto our site and post whatever they want where ever they want.

There are a number of different ideas, ideologies and strategies coming from people with Houston indymedia, Indymedia globally and the people who use our locally site towards its mission of promoteing grassroots journalism and social and economic justice. If you dont care about those things, we have dont have an obligation to post things that detract from social justice and the hard work people in our community to to cover issues and events. If you think that calling us stalinists or nazis or whatever is going to guilt trip us into letting ya'll poop on our website, you are just as much a nazi-bolchevick for not letting me poop in your bed.

A better comparison is if I had a house that was open to all my neighbors, and then one day you come in and say, "I don't really agree with what you are saying. Why is it that you want more border control?" And at that point, I tell you to no longer speak because you're smearing poop all over everything in my house. Well, actually you just stated an opinion and asked a question so that you could debate the subject.

"its mission of promoteing grassroots journalism and social and economic justice" Is it that you're just so naive that you think "justice" can exist without debate or is it that you want to hide behind a dictatorship and try to disquise it with nobel words?

I think it's pretty clear to all open minded people what your agenda is.

I thought this was a 'open house' not 'your house'? Is some folks poop on the walls better than others? Barring hate speech, ad hominem attacks, etc., IMC should be a blank slate in regard to ideas. Or is that not the case anymore? IMC editors are just as guilty of personal beefs as any other flawed humans. Ya dig? Does that make me an oppressor? Or spaghetti?

By the way: As is clear to see, this thread is only being participated in by editors and few original posters. The lack of a comments section has precluded involvement in discussion of IMC protocol by the lion's share of visitors. Does community interest play a role here?

That would make the world a better place.

Staying on topic would make this thread more productive.

Now that you have a couple more articles about the "Great Jewish Conspiracy", HIMC must be viewed as legitimate. lol

Zionists post this crap here to discredit Indymedia. They realize that:

(1.) Indymedia is a funnel in the ear of the progressive left

(2.) rational, true and above all compelling anti-Zionist propaganda appears on Indymedia

(3.) without the support of the American taxpayer, Zionism is doomed

(4.) America is swinging left

(5.) so it greatly behooves the Zionist propaganda mill to do whatever it takes to turn the people who read Indymedia against the anti-Zionist cause. This includes lies, forgeries, character assassination and, in at least one case, hacking. SF-IMC is the most outspoken of all IMCs on this subject. During the war in Lebanon last summer, Zionist hackers took the site off line. The even bragged about it. That's the kind of people they are, ruthless, dishonest and vain.

So now I'm part of the Jewish Conspiracy? ROFLMO

If nothing else, you're good for a laugh.