I used to read the Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center's website frequently. I would participate in discussion via their comments, and in fact have even written a few stories that got posted to their front page over the years. I also donated money to their capital campaign and have paid membership dues in multiple years. But I just no longer see any point to it. This is because the debate on ucimc.org is not open (such as the way it is here), but is instead heavily censored.
Case in point. See the latest story on ucimc.org reporting about someone being held in the jail without seeing an attorney for unpaid debts. The article, by Brian Dolinar, chronicles the difficulties for a current county jail inmate who has been stuck there for six months due to money owed, and is critical of the State's Attorney for her handling of these types of cases.
I found the article interesting and generally agree that putting debtors in jail isn't a great solution, as you take away their primary method of paying back the debt---working. That said, when I first read the article, I saw one comment that hadn't yet been hidden, and it said this:
"Trolling" pretty much just means "disagreeing" at this point, right? Is there more to it than that? If so, I'd love to hear you explain it.
This was my first clue to check the 'hidden comments,' as there was nothing visible above this comment that would have led to it. If you aren't familiar, the IMC software has the ability to hide comments (as does most blog software I presume), and the IMC uses it extensively. So I checked the hidden comments, which you can also do here. What did I find? A couple of comments discussing the article and the merits of putting people in jail for unpaid debt.
I didn't agree with the comments that were hidden, but I can't see any reason for hiding them. They are asking real questions and reflect one point of view. They invite debate of the issues. That someone doesn't agree with them doesn't make them a 'troll.' So, having read that comment, then going on to read the hidden comments, I posted my own comment:
I can't disagree with Anonymous 10:36. Click on the 'hidden comments' link below and see what you think of the comments that were already hidden. It seems to me that the IMC site just plain doesn't support the idea of discussion on controversial issues here.
I'm sure you can guess what happened next. Yes, my comment was also hidden as a 'troll.' As far as I'm concerned, that's it. The end of debate. If one can't discuss the issues on that site, then the site has no purpose other than to be a PR vehicle. That's ok if it's what the IMC wants, but it's not what I thought they were about.
If you look at their mission statement, you'll find the following:
We will empower people to "become the media" by providing democratic access to available technologies and information.
Once most every comment by anyone who disagrees with the posted articles are getting hidden as 'trolling,' I no longer see the site as "providing democratic access to available technologies and information."
As a previous member of the UCIMC, a previous contributor of it's front page stories, and one who has donated many hours of time to the organization over the years, I can no longer support an organization that censors real debate. Further, I find it ironic that one of my best options for sharing my point of view is the right-slanted illinpundit website. However, on illinipundit I have the option of writing a blog post, others have the option of promoting it to the front page if they like it, and anyone can say whatever they want in the comments. That, my friends, is 'democratic access to available technologies and information.'
IThe IMC should turn off commenting altogether if they don't support it, and they should update their mission statement to reflect the change in attitude.
I too have posted comments at the site and they were immediately swept to the "Hidden" bin" I don't think the software is doing it, I think they don't like any comment that is not in agreement with their thinking, they are always asking why so many ------ are either getting arrested or "hassled"by the man. I have left the race, gender blank as not to be labeled as a racist. This bunch must think it's OK to smuggler drugs into the County Jail and then when a man dies from an overdose of cocaine that was in a bag that ruptured in his stomach start hollering for the Sheriff to be held responsible. I see that the UC IMC is recieving some public money in the way of grants to run this operation, It must be nice!
Gregg, I think the article about the Quentin Larry lawsuit is at http://www.ucimc.org/node/1270&hidden=1 (I should really stop looking at that site entirely, but some of Xander's comments were funny.) Interesting that the Quentin Larry estate is being represented by Jude Redwood, a "civil rights attorney." There was an incident a while ago where Redwood's husband referred to Harvey Welch as a "shoe shine boy." (http://www.hinshawlaw.com/knowledge/alert_detail.aspx?id=1128&type=5303) Again, I'd be very curious to see a copy of the lawsuit if it's posted on the County Clerk's website or anywhere else.
There might be hope. It seems that the entire editorial staff does not agree with ML's "policies."
There might be hope. It seems that the entire editorial staff does not agree with ML's "policies."
Not sure... ML never responded to that, even though he has been online hiding articles since that email was sent. The decision to block Xander also seemed to come from ML alone: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/imc-web/2007-May/002260.html
True, wayward. There's also his illogical policy that "Any post by a banned user is off-topic."
I'm just glad that CU residents have a place like IP to express their views, regardless of party affiliation. I really appreciate IP's editorial practices - he relies on the community to shoot down posters with attitudes, and only steps in when something gets really out of hand. And when he steps in, he doesn't just delete all posts that don't follow his political views.
I understand that the UCIMC doesn't want to be a blog, and would rather be a media outlet - that's entirely fine, and I think that that should grant them a greater level of editorial control. However, ML's editing has gotten out of control - WCIA, a MSM outlet, has little editing on their forums. I think that UCIMC's editorial policy is limiting their credibility as journalists and allowing their site to run completely contrary to their mission statement - if the MSM allows for debate and the questioning of its articles, shouldn't the IMC as well?
I didn't mean to imply that it was software doing the hiding automatically, so my apologies if I it was taken that way. The hiding is done by their editorial staff (namely ML, but I believe others have the ability to hide).
I couldn't agree more.
note also that the "undemocratic" news-gazette prints letters from all viewpoints without censoring them IMC is the only outlet in ton that DOES censor routinely
To be blunt, I think that UCIMC's credibility is shot, and I doubt that there's anything that could be done at this point to repair it. It's admittedly been entertaining to watch the BD-ML-Xander drama, but I'm mostly just glad that UCIMC is not my problem anymore.
"Further, I find it ironic that one of my best options for sharing my point of view is the right-slanted illinpundit website. However, on illinipundit I have the option of writing a blog post, others have the option of promoting it to the front page if they like it, and anyone can say whatever they want in the comments. That, my friends, is 'democratic access to available technologies and information.' "
curious,
Great post. I have often expressed my dismay at the things happening at UCIMC, as I want them to be successful, and I think they have so much potential due to the IMC brand and support. But they're squandering a great opportunity.
Also, for your information, when I first saw this post today, it had seven positive votes and no negative votes, meaning it had been promoted to the front page because it was a great post and the readers recognized it as such.
That we can achieve such openness and participation on here makes me very, very proud indeed. If you ever feel like we're heading down the path to where UCIMC is today, I hope you (and everyone else) will start screaming like mad.
Trolling has become a much misdefined term. Basically anyone who disagrees with the stated norm is accused of this.
It's much in the same vein of how the word "racist" has become overused.
I've always heard that elephants were intelligent, and now I've seen it for myself.
Well, there may be broader issues affecting Indymedia, and some of the stuff going on with UCIMC may just be a reflection of that. There's an interesting article called "What's the Matter with Indymedia?" about the declining quality of many IMC sites at http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/23741 . There's also an IndymediaWatch blog at http://indymediawatch.blogspot.com/ .
One thing I've noticed with the pattern of hiding critical and dissenting posts is that it seems to foster a distorted view of reality. For example, some of the responses to BD's article at http://www.ucimc.org/node/1337&hidden=1 seemed quite valid to me, and most of them were hidden (or will be soon). I'd also agree that whoever encouraged the 17-year-old kid who was pepper-sprayed a couple of months ago to turn down the SA's offer of diversion did the kid a real disservice. But according to ML, the main reason that people are critical of BD's posts is that they're somehow obsessed with him. (I'm not making this up -- see http://www.ucimc.org/node/1270#comment-1528 ). Xander pointed out that the reason that people had not criticized some of the other stories on UCIMC was that they didn't contain baseless allegations. Of course, this post was hidden with the comment "[x, not really answering the question of his BD-fixation, maybe should spend his energy on an appeal to Steering - ML]."
And here's ML's response to Danielle's earlier email:
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/imc-web/2007-June/002270.html
He's still convinced that there's only one person disagreeing with BD.
And it continues.... http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/imc-web/2007-June/002271.html
AFAIK, MTL is right about Xander never posting to UCIMC under any other usernames. But I gotta admit that some of the "facts" that ML comes up with are sort of entertaining.
wayward, you should just admit that all of these usernames and writing styles belong to you. ML already said so, so it must be true. Remember, you and Xander are either the same person, or in constant contact with each other.
The ironic thing is that I had no idea who Xander even was until he'd been posting to UCIMC for a while. I admit that I was briefly tempted to troll, but it would have been hypocritical for me to complain about the sockpuppetry and then post as anyone other than "wayward" there. (Julia Rietz, who happens to be one of UCIMC's most frequent targets, agreed with this.) So I haven't posted anything at all there since before my "editorial privileges" got revoked (because of the thread at http://www.illinipundit.com/2007/04/13/jayson-blair-journalism-award ).
But it's been morbidly fascinating to watch ML jump to conclusions. IIRC, he did accuse me of being the "Model Train Lover" character a few months ago. Oh goody, ML responds with an attempt at dimestore psychoanalysis. You can view the whole "UCIMC Editorial Policy" thread at http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/imc-web/2007-June/thread.html
As a guy who has been involved with the IMC and who knows both Mike and Brian, I am wondering a couple of things.
First, why is this being discussed over here? Obviously it's perfectly fine to have this discussion and I am NOT in any way advocating censorship of any kind, but there is something about this whole thread that is just weird. Considering the IMC threads are the polar opposite of this site and, in some way, the leading competition to IP, why is it ok to just spend countless hours ripping them? It seems pretty lame to me and I wonder where all the negative energy is coming from.
But secondly I have *always* been frustrated that tthere are no conservative voices at the IMC. The idea, which I originally bought into, was a media center for the entire community. The idea that a liberal and a conservative could sit down on the radio once a month and discussion the issues. The Pro-Life groups could meet in rooms right next to the AWARE meeting, that kind of thing.
Obviously that hasn't happened and it is a big disappointment. I don't know why this community seems so afraid of the "others" but it seems to be quite a problem (and not just the IMC's problem). Again, kudos to IP for making a place where we can all peacefully co-exist.
"First, why is this being discussed over here? Obviously it's perfectly fine to have this discussion and I am NOT in any way advocating censorship of any kind, but there is something about this whole thread that is just weird. Considering the IMC threads are the polar opposite of this site and, in some way, the leading competition to IP, why is it ok to just spend countless hours ripping them?"
I think one of the points being made is that when these questions are brought up on IMC, they're moderated out of existence. Comments that dissent from the author's opinion are hidden, and then comments asking why are also hidden. So it's hard to have this discussion on IMC, and so people bring it here, where they don't have to worry about my deleting stuff.
And I'm not am IMC-hater. I've said repeatedly that I really want IMC to succeed and flourish. They've got so much potential due to the IMC brand and support, and the activist community here in CU, that they really have a lot to offer. But they severely limit the discussions over there (just look for the hidden comments), and that's damaged their credibility. I'm not afraid of "the others," as I think growing new media benefits us all, and that there's a desperate need for it in this community. But I think their overmoderation is wrong on principle, and that it's damaging their ability to contribute lively discussions on local issues.
I also have an additional reaction that's more pointed: frankly, if IP.com were doing that type of moderating/discussion control, the condemnations about censorship would be loud and strong.
On June 4th, 2007 at 08:48 AM, Teacher Man said: "...Obviously that hasn't happened and it is a big disappointment. I don't know why this community seems so afraid of the "others" but it seems to be quite a problem (and not just the IMC's problem). Again, kudos to IP for making a place where we can all peacefully co-exist."
I think you've hit on the exact reason why folks here at IP are talking about the local IMC: they market themselves as being the voice of the community, yet are quite draconian in how the editor's censor or hide comments. Having read both the Quentin Larry thread and the one referenced by the original poster for this thread, many of the comments that were hidden or censored were legitimate questions posed to the poster and readers at UCIMC, or counter-arguments to the same. There were some replies and posts that bordered right up on personal attacks and mean-spirited comments, and I could understand and sympathize with hiding or removing those posts. But when a poster asks legitimate questions, poses counter-arguments with examples, and still gets censored for what appears to me, to be simply disagreeing with the writers at UCIMC, the folks at UCIMC lose all credibility with me, for being the voice of the community.
Left-leaning posters like yourself, and others like Xian, Curious, and so on, do a much better job of voicing concerns and opinions of the more liberal, "leftnik" (sorry, couldn't resist, i think its a funny phrase :) ) folks in the wider C-U area than the supposed voice of the community at UCIMC. Just like playing chess or cards against good players forces one to become a good player in turn, debating with intelligent people across the political spectrum makes (or should make) everyone more intelligent.
HG
All of this is why, even though I'm a lifelong Democrat and union member, and a long time officer in both, as well as an employee for a quarter-century of a variety of community based non-profit organizations that some conservatives cringe at the very mention of, I am willing to support IlliniPundit financially, but not UCIMC.
Left-leaning posters like yourself, and others like Xian, Curious, and so on, do a much better job of voicing concerns and opinions of the more liberal, "leftnik" (sorry, couldn't resist, i think its a funny phrase :) ) folks in the wider C-U area than the supposed voice of the community at UCIMC. Just like playing chess or cards against good players forces one to become a good player in turn, debating with intelligent people across the political spectrum makes (or should make) everyone more intelligent.
Exactly - that's one of the reasons I came over here. IP is right - I think that if it were possible to talk about UCIMC editorial policy over there without having your posts hidden, then discussing it on IP.com instead would be questionable. But given how quick UCIMC is to hide comments, it seems reasonable to move the discussion somewhere that can't happen.
frankly, if IP.com were doing that type of moderating/discussion control, the condemnations about censorship would be loud and strong.
Actually, the condemnations may be loud and strong, but they would never be heard because they would be censored out of existance IF, (and that's a big "if"), IP.com were doing that type of moderating/discussion control.
Personally, I am fed up with both the democrats and the republicans, so I really appreciate the ability to discuss both sides of issues, which is why I regularly check IP.com.
"Actually, the condemnations may be loud and strong, but they would never be heard because they would be censored out of existance IF, (and that's a big "if"), IP.com were doing that type of moderating/discussion control."
True. I've deleted less than five non-spam, non-duplicate comments since we moved to Drupal last year. And yet everytime someone has a comment held up in the spam queue (which isn't very often, thankfully), someone still accuses me of censorship. :-)
"Personally, I am fed up with both the democrats and the republicans, so I really appreciate the ability to discuss both sides of issues, which is why I regularly check IP.com."
Thank you - that sort of endorsement of open discussion is the highest compliment.
"First, why is this being discussed over here? Obviously it's perfectly fine to have this discussion and I am NOT in any way advocating censorship of any kind, but there is something about this whole thread that is just weird. Considering the IMC threads are the polar opposite of this site and, in some way, the leading competition to IP, why is it ok to just spend countless hours ripping them? It seems pretty lame to me and I wonder where all the negative energy is coming from."
I decided to post this here for several reasons. 1) attempts to post even the smallest voice of concern on the IMC's site got hidden away. 2) I knew it wouldn't be hidden away here. 3) It was dead easy to post on IP (this is my first IP blog entry, although I've posted various comments in the past). 4) I wanted to get a dialog going about this issue (more below) and posting here was a good option for that. 5) by posting this on IP it helps to broaden the debates on this site.
I don't believe that this thread is 'countless hours of ripping them.' Instead, it's a real discussion about an issue I care about. I respect the IMC's decision to censor criticism on their site, but I don't presume that their censorship can reach beyond their own domain.
I've noticed over the last year that a number of Democrats and left-leaners are posting here. I'm one of them and have been posting in the comments since IP started. Gordy has taken this valuable vehicle for the local Republicans and opened it up so that other voices can be heard. I applaud this decision and believe it helps grow the site into a venue for real debate. By 'real debate' I mean discussion of the issues by people of all perspectives instead of a (re)confirmation of one's point of view by others with the same point of view.
Real debate is what our government is missing. It used to have it, but it's not there anymore. True discussion results in better ideas, and who doesn't need those?
Ideally I'd like to see the IMC take this issue on as an organization and solve it. With some of the most passionate people on the planet working to make that place go, they have the capacity to do so. However, their consensus leadership structure works both for and against them, and this is one area where I think it's working to their detriment. I'm sure an IMCista would suggest to me that I should attend a working group and start changing the editorial policy from within. But quite frankly, I'm not *that* interested in seeing it changed. I have other priorities and interests. And if the people who do want to put in the time feel that censorship is what they want there, then they can (and should) have it.
IMHO, criticizing public behavior (including online actions) seems fair, but private aspects of people's lives should be off-limits. So I appreciate that all the IP.com discussion related to UCIMC has stayed within these bounds.
An Independent Media Center is a concept I am inclined to support; but there was always something about it that didn't seem to ring true although I couldn't put my finger on it. My experience of it (often as link from here) has been limited because anything I wanted to read usually required that I "pay" for access by giving them my email address. I can understand that on the NYT site, as the Times is selling a newspaper and is not supported by funds from entities such as the Illinois Arts Council. I am not inclined to give any site my email address just to have a looksee at its content. I know I could get and use a bogus address to gain access, but I simply don't deal with any site I don't trust enough to give my real address. Foolish, perhaps, but it has worked for me so far.
By contrast, I was able to spend large amounts of time on the Illini Pundit to thoroughly investigate the site, get to know the community, get an accurate sense of the caliber of the contributions before deciding that it is a community of which I would like to be a member. The Pundit is accessible, intelligent, tolerant, and cordial (if sometimes heated--not a criticism); and as far as I can see it is self-regulated by its contributors without editorial redlining or hidden comments. Remarkably democratic for a site that purports to be right-leaning. But really, do right/left, conservative/liberal have much meaning anymore.
The positive aspect of this discussion seems to me, as a newbie, is that this may make the CUIMC take a look at how it wants to define and present itself as a valid alternative platform for input on the concerns and issues of the greater CU community.
Just look at their site. It is a far left propaganda machine. Thats all folks.
They do not want to hear anything to the contrary. It defeats their purpose for existance in the unified distribution of leftist materials under the guise of service to mankind through socialism, amongst others primary agendas.
Personally, if they do stay up, I hope the truth sets them free. Otherwise demise. NO hate, No tolerance either.
The website is nothing but an extension of the far, far left rhetoric that its membership parlays.
They have yet to post anything I contributed! surprise!
Being that it is open to all to use, we should over run it with right minded folks and take it over. Yah, that it, a peaceful take over. Just need a couple hundred to sign up and we own it.
Gordy, start a list.
I copied this from the UC IMC web site in the "about us" it says "Supported in part by the Illinois Arts Council, a state agency. That's taxpayers money folks! we are all funding this "leftnik" bunch, like it or not. How about you Gordy, you getting any free money from the State? I'll bet not.
Being that it is open to all to use, we should over run it with right minded folks and take it over. Yah, that it, a peaceful take over.
Honestly, it's more like a ghost town - just compare http://www.ucimc.org/tracker and http://www.illinipundit.com/tracker and look at the number of responses, the number of active users who post regularly, and the rate of posts. Although ML has tried to attribute the decline to "trolls," that may be wishful thinking. If that were actually the case, the pattern of hiding dissenting posts should make people a lot more comfortable posting there, right? But many of the articles are just reposts from other places, and most of the articles on the UCIMC tracker page had 0 responses. So I'm not sure that there'd be any point to a "take over" of the UCIMC site, peaceful or otherwise.
I copied this from the UC IMC web site in the "about us" it says "Supported in part by the Illinois Arts Council, a state agency. That's taxpayers money folks! we are all funding this "leftnik" bunch, like it or not. How about you Gordy, you getting any free money from the State? I'll bet not.
IIRC, UCIMC is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charitable organization, and I have mixed feelings about this. Some of the stuff on the site looks a lot like electioneering (e.g., the "Why You Should Vote..." article at http://www.ucimc.org/node/1126 and the references to "Dump Difanis" at http://www.ucimc.org/node/1194&hidden=1 ). Then again, there are some worthwhile groups associated with UCIMC, like Books to Prisoners, that seem like legitimate charitable projects.
"Being that it is open to all to use, we should over run it with right minded folks and take it over. Yah, that it, a peaceful take over. Just need a couple hundred to sign up and we own it."
I've found that in the past such attempts at internet takeovers of chat channels and discussions has just resulted in bigger crackdowns by the moderators/editors as it merely legitimizes in their mind that tough measures need to be taken against "disruption." Not only would this legitimize tougher action in the minds of the moderators/editors who currently run it, it could be used by them to show others that their harsh moderating is necessary to allow discussion by non-abusive members. In other words it often as the exact opposite effect as the "liberating rebels" intended.
Not to mention that cyber-wars are a bit lame. Usually the better alternative is to have a better alternative. I think IP offers that better alternative, although I'm sure some of the more left-leaning folks would also enjoy a forum that was left-leaning and more open as well so that they could discuss issues more amongst their peers but allow dissent so it isn't an echo chamber.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
As always a great conversation. That’s what I like about this site people can really talk about issues and not go completely crazy, well most of us (some were already crazy).
I did see we need another T-shirt for the other side. IP "Leftnik"
I'd enjoy a forum with less red vs. blue nonsense and more open thought, but it just shows me that too many people are blissfully ignorant about issues and shouldn't be voting. They're a disservice to the process; we'd all be better off if they stayed home, smoked a pack and watched Springer.
Dear Wenalway,
I would enjoy a Big Mac, but with charcoal flavor, lettuce, tomato and mayonaise.
John
"I'd enjoy a forum with less red vs. blue nonsense and more open thought, but it just shows me that too many people are blissfully ignorant about issues and shouldn't be voting. They're a disservice to the process; we'd all be better off if they stayed home, smoked a pack and watched Springer."
Well, if this site doesn't meet your expectations, you can always stay away.
Or, better yet, start your own site, and insult people, wenalway-style, over there. Oh, wait - never mind.
And BD responds.... http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/imc-web/2007-June/002275.html
Umm... given his first paragraph, he might want to consider not sending the email to a publicly archived mailing list.
I love BD's logic (in linked item) that it doesn't matter if "debtor's prison" is accurate, the main ithing is an anoyymous attorney used the phrase, so he did his reporting work
Not sure who the anonymous lawyer is in this case. I know that BD has had some contact with Bob Kirchner and Jude Redwood.
Brian Dolinar Tue Jun 5 14:17:43 CDT 2007: "These words are for the intended recipients and I do not give permission to
reprint my words elsewhere."
is there anything he can really do (suing for libel, defamation, banning a UCIMC user, blocking an anonymous poster, giving someone the evil eye....) if anyone in the world "reprints" his words or otherwise quotes him? what's the penaly for doing so? anything?
and I gotta agree with wayward; its a publically available mail archive. some guy in Outer Mongolia, with a modem and a computer, can find this email archive and read it.
HG
"We believe the charges of sexual abuse and home invasion against Thompson are retribution for his political activism." The conspiracy theorists are running wild over there! Maybe the police raids in that part of town are where the drug dealers and gang bangers are !
is there anything he can really do (suing for libel, defamation, banning a UCIMC user, blocking an anonymous poster, giving someone the evil eye....) if anyone in the world "reprints" his words or otherwise quotes him? what's the penaly for doing so? anything?
Well... I'm really not sure how it works legally for email sent from one person to another, though the laws involved might be related to copyright rather than libel/defamation. (Truth is a defense against libel.) Practically speaking, it's a good idea to realize that plaintext email isn't too secure, and it's also easy for recipients to forward emails to others. In this particular case, he was sending the email to a publicly archived mailing list, which meant that the software at chambana.net was automatically posting his words to a public website. Since one of the headers in all the emails to the imc-web list contain the location of the archive, one could reasonably say that he either knew or should have known that anything he sent to that list would be posted publicly.
"I don't rely on IMC web pg comments to "strengthen" my articles. I have been part of the editorial collective at the Public i for three years, which has provided more direction in my writing than my many years in school.
These individuals who question semantics may acknowledge injustice but they put no action behind their words. They will not even show their face.
I'm not interested in trying to maintain any "reputation" for these people who have none.
The enemy is supposed to hate it."
Wow.
I don't usually try to pick fights with the IMC folks (there are others here with much more expertise than me) but, in summary, he's saying: "My journalism is so good that input from others cannot improve it. And those who suggest that it could be improved are all the enemy anyway."
I'm of the opinion that just about all of the writing/journalism that is done online can be improved by transparency and collaboration - and that mine certainly can. Someone reading a post may have some special expertise, or have some special knowledge of pertinent facts. Or they may ask questions that spur a more vigorous examination of the issue. Or they may just want to agree or disagree. But nothing is to be gained by posting something to the internet, crossing one's arms and saying, "Hands off - this article is already perfect, and I don't care what you think." Such an attitude defeats the intrinsic advantages of the medium.
"This criticism was just another red herring to try and discredit and slander my name."
This is inaccurate. I was one of the commenters whose words were hidden. My comment was an attempt to draw attention to other comments that were substantive and on-topic, but were hidden. My comment was then also hidden. At least one IMC founder questioned the decision to hide this same substantive comment. I wonder if other IMC editors agree? Or do they agree with BD's dismissal of feedback and commentary?
"Most all IP bloggers have done no real work, they are just slinging arrows from an armchair."
This is inaccurate. Some IP bloggers are elected officials. Others are activists. Many more are strong committed workers who have put in hours, days, or years of time towards change.
"Again, we have come to a consensus that the IMC web pg is not a blog, not the IP."
I reiterate that if the IMC agrees with BD, then they should adjust their mission statement and remove the commenting feature. Clearly they'd be happier overall. They wouldn't have to worry about those annoying alternative points of view. They wouldn't have to worry about "the enemy."
"These words are for the intended recipients and I do not give permission to reprint my words elsewhere."
Given that the intended recipients are essentially the entire planet as the words were automatically posted to a public website, I'd say this disclaimer has little or no effect. Regardless, quoting of publically available material falls within fair use.
I would just reiterate again the need to separate the actions of the IMC as a group of diverse individuals and whomever is causing trouble moderating the web site. To give an example, Gordy has done a great job here, but occasionally someone with "the keys" has done some idiotic stuff.
If you feel like the IMC website is flawed to the point that it is not meeting the needs of the community, as Glock said, it's probably a good idea to come up with some sort of plan rather than going off half-cocked.
If you want my opinion, I'd say a thoughtful letter to the group running the IMC as a whole explaining how the website moderators fail to meet the standards laid out in their own policies and how that failure could potentially compromise many of the goals of the IMC at large.
The difference I've seen with the IMC from most organizations is that people sincerely are interested in the goals they have laid out. But to be honest, when I was involved there, a lot of us simply did not have to the time or interest to interact with the website.
I agree with Xian. I'd also suggest that the "vultures on a carcass" feel of this thread leads me to to believe a bunch of you should consider trucking-on-over to the IMC and becoming members. The biggest problem with that wonderful resource is that there are almost no conservatives involved. Why not be one of the first? Get a radio show. Serve on a committee. Schlep some gear for a scream-core band. It's fun!
I honestly believe the folks over there would welcome you with open arms, but you'd have to take the first step.
FWIW, I was a member for quite a while, and I can tell you that the issue of hiding comments was brought up more than once. Eventually I just gave up and left the organization.
Update: Looks like even more posts have been hidden as of this morning. http://www.ucimc.org/node/1337&hidden=1
"If you feel like the IMC website is flawed to the point that it is not meeting the needs of the community, as Glock said, it's probably a good idea to come up with some sort of plan rather than going off half-cocked."
Don't forget BD's quote: "we have come to a consensus that the IMC web pg is not a blog." According to that statement, the frequent censoring is a consensus decision. Like Wayward, I have also been an IMC member in the past and have discussed this hiding issue with well-established IMC leaders. It doesn't make a difference.
I also reject your assertion that a calm discussion of the issues on a blog is 'going off half-cocked.'
The half-cocked comment may have been in reference to the suggestion of some sort of cyber war styled take over described earlier as opposed to the discussion as a whole.
I don't know much about the UC IMC itself. My first and only interactions with it have been through the website which has always seemed fairly hostile to conservative viewpoints. If the organization doesn't want to project that kind of image they are failing miserably by having BD and ML's rants and harsh censorship of dissent right on the front page of their website. If it wasn't for some of the people I've met at the blogger happy hours at MOM's I would have had no idea that the organization itself wasn't just some extremely left wing activist group, their website is just managed in a way that would give one that impression.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
For the morbidly curious, here's a thread where somebody actually did send an email to the imc-web list about their editorial policy.
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/imc-web/2007-March/002177.html
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/imc-web/2007-March/002178.html
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/imc-web/2007-March/002179.html
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/imc-web/2007-March/002180.html
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/imc-web/2007-March/002181.html
"I agree with Xian. I'd also suggest that the "vultures on a carcass" feel of this thread leads me to to believe a bunch of you should consider trucking-on-over to the IMC and becoming members. The biggest problem with that wonderful resource is that there are almost no conservatives involved. Why not be one of the first? Get a radio show. Serve on a committee. Schlep some gear for a scream-core band. It's fun!
I honestly believe the folks over there would welcome you with open arms, but you'd have to take the first step."
Thanks for the suggestion, TM, but after some of the things they've said about me personally, I doubt they'd welcome my involvment, despite my repeated expressions of support for the IMC concept and new media in general.
I suspect that they didn't coin the term "IP knuckle dragger" because they were really interested in what I/we thought.
I suspect that they didn't coin the term "IP knuckle dragger" because they were really interested in what I/we thought.
But they have (inadvertently) provided some great T-shirt ideas.
I also reject your assertion that a calm discussion of the issues on a blog is 'going off half-cocked.'
The half-cocked comment may have been in reference to the suggestion of some sort of cyber war styled take over described earlier as opposed to the discussion as a whole.
It was. That was what Glock was discussing in the post that I was referring to. I reject your assertion that I asserted that a calm discussion of the issues on a blog was 'going off half-cocked' :P
Thanks for the suggestion, TM, but after some of the things they've said about me personally, I doubt they'd welcome my involvment, despite my repeated expressions of support for the IMC concept and new media in general.
I suspect that they didn't coin the term "IP knuckle dragger" because they were really interested in what I/we thought.
The ubiquitous "they"?
I'm sorry, I realize this is an internet community, but my limited experience says that internet communties, while they can be energizing and wonderful, are not the same at non-internet communities and it's very dangerous to judge a place by its webpage or the folks who staff that page.
If the only way you know the IMC is through the website, I could see why you would have a negative impression, and certainly it's worth critiquing. But it's pretty foolhardy to generalize experience from the website to the entire IMC community.
I mean except for the couple people on this site who've said directly that poor people deserved to die and that racism is really not that bad of a thing, I imagine most folks do quite well over there, as long as they bring the same enthusiasm to real life that they do to the cyber community.
Well, Brian and Martell have also made it to some Champaign City Council meetings, if you'd like to see video instead of posts.
http://atlas-real.atlas.uiuc.edu:8080/ramgen/champaign/2007/cc_05_15_07.rm (1:44:05 - 2:03:49)
http://atlas-real.atlas.uiuc.edu:8080/ramgen/champaign/2007/cc_04_03_07.rm (44:30 - 1:11:00)
"I'm sorry, I realize this is an internet community, but my limited experience says that internet communties, while they can be energizing and wonderful, are not the same at non-internet communities and it's very dangerous to judge a place by its webpage or the folks who staff that page."
See this is what makes little sense to me. Say I was running a media center. Wanted various viewpoints from the area to work with me. And I set up a website representing that organization to the world. I wouldn't allow the front page to be an extremely authoritarian "this view and nobody elses" forum. I think as a media center I'd allow people to establish forums like that... but it wouldn't be the front page. As the front page it strongly indicates that these are the views of the organization and other viewpoints are unwelcome. As ML points out they aren't just unwelcome, they are the "enemy." He sounds like a grade A class warfare communist that would sooner shoot me if some radical extremist government came to power than let me have my own independent voice.
If that's not what the UC IMC is all about then it SURE AS HELL doesn't care if their website portrays them as such. This isn't some independent forum that is allowed to exist on their server with the disclaimer that the views aren't necessarily their own... it's their front page and they obviously fully condone it.
If they condone it then anybody who isn't a complete radical activist IS ABSOLUTELY UNWELCOME at UC IMC. Which is sad because in conversations with people who interact with the actual UC IMC it is nothing like this. But apparently their leadership doesn't give a damn. They are perfectly happy with projecting this unwelcoming message to anyone that doesn't fit into the radicalized leftist mindset.
Oh boy sign me up. It would be like the the "Boys and Girls Club" having their main website demanding that those showing up without their Little Red Book need not apply but the people from there claiming they are open to alternative viewpoints. Right. When I used to hang out at the Office in Urbana I noticed the place and I decided to look it up on the web. My first impression. "Oh, wow, it's a Che organization... cares deeply about suffering but would execute me for my point of view if they could get away with it. No thanks."
If they dislike giving people that impression then it shouldn't be their frontpage. Obviously they don't mind that impression and continue to condone it. It's about as welcoming to other points of view as Fred Phelps' baptist church.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I think it's more likely that the leadership doesn't use the webpage and could give a flying crap about the web page. I agree that that's foolish, and short-sighted, but if you dismiss good folks and opportunities to learn on presentation, it's really too bad for everyone around.
After all, I've felt the same about here--look at some of the crap that has been front paged by the less level-headed members with front page keys here. Now Gordy has come up with a better way and deserves credit for that. But hey, I've had a number of talks with brilliant folks who ignore this site because "it hates gays" or "is racist" or whatever. Those who range left in politics certainly have to put up with more regular personal attacks and trolling (Wenalway aside) and I would bet that most have considered walking away on multiple occasions. But it's a shame--we need more interactions of people of different political perspectives.
The internet site is obviously the most important face to folks who spend most of their time on the internet. But many folks have not switched to internet activism--some are behind the curve and others have thoughtful critiques of the practice. Once again--probably short-sighted, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water (what does that even mean?:P)... Furthermore, remember that this is a community organization and might reasonably be uninterested in "representing itself to the world".
Anyway, I agree with your critiques, but I think your ultimate conclusion--that the IMC as a group "fully condones" boorish censorship is extremist and destructive to the conversation. Re-read your own post and the logical escalation you follow:
1. It's stupid to have a idiot in a highly public position representing your organization.
2. If your webpage espouses an exclusive philosophy, people who encounter the web page might feel unwelcome.
3. If people allow this to continue, they clearly don't care about what the web page espouses.
You had me until here.
4. They fully condone it.
5. If they fully condone the webpage (which you haven't made it clear that they do), they the non-web page arms of the group are unwelcoming of anyone who disagrees with them.
6. Your experiences contradict this.
7. But you don't want to join.
8. You compare it to a national organization having a bad webpage.
9. You jump back and forth between appraising the web page and the organization agian.
xian... I see what you're getting at. As an internet nerd it is hard for me to fathom that there is such a major disconnect between the people who run the UC IMC and the people who run their webpage. Perhaps its because I've typically seen such owner/webadmin relationships in businesses and non-profit organizations where the webpage was always considered their gateway to the community (or world as it were) and they would have been mortified if their webpage somehow depicted them as something they weren't, especially if it was in a negative light. (That's where that comparison was coming from.)
If there's a huge disconnect there in this regard, they really ought to mend it. You seem to agree on this point.
Most of the rest of the rant after that doesn't make much sense if that disconnect exists, so I'll concede that I don't know, and it just seems a bit strange to me.
I'm not saying I don't want to join. I'm saying that from the website's description and content it makes the place out to be little more than independent media for leftwing activists. I suppose I could stop in and see what the real place is all about. Perhaps get some ideas about what they offer and see if anything pops out as "Hey that's a good idea!" But if it wasn't for others from there actually telling me that there was more to it than what's described in the website I'd have felt not just unwelcome but as "the enemy."
And the unwelcoming bit wasn't from the fact that content on the page was generally leftwing. That's no big deal. I'm a liberal myself, I just don't think liberalism should necessarily be adhering to conservative marxist thought or its derivatives. It's the absolute intolerance of dissent from some extremely leftwing folks on there that created the unwelcoming environment (not to mention the explanations which were, to be honest, a bit frightening). Sure you might come onto IP and see a conservative rant with several conservative posters commenting conservatively. But you also see dissenters freely speaking alternative viewpoints and arguing about their disagreements.
I can totally understand wanting to have a forum where your views aren't totally overwhelmed by the opposition though. And the UC IMC website has the potential of offering such a forum. They just don't seem interested. Their choice.
I sincerely don't mean to unfairly bash anyone. It seems to have mostly to do with my not being able to understand the disconnect between the two entities. Considering the several people who've argued that the organization (as opposed to the website folks) are probably far more tolerant of others I may actually stop in and see what the place is really all about. I appreciate your input on this subject which, I must admit, has been more than a bit perplexing to me.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Oh and sorry if I ramble... I get hit in the head a lot. ;-)
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I can totally understand wanting to have a forum where your views aren't totally overwhelmed by the opposition though. And the UC IMC website has the potential of offering such a forum. They just don't seem interested. Their choice.
Glock, I think the words "their choice" are at the heart of the matter. The UCIMC leadership certainly is not unaware of the website, because website issues have been discussed in their steering committee meeting. Essentially, ML and the other web editors make choices, and those choices affect many people's perception of the organization.
Thanks, reading your responses, I think at the heart of it, we basically agree. I do think that the disconnect you are discussing exists and I do think it's a shame. However, it's also a very real reason why the UC IMC needs more people who are involved and do stress the online arena as a place for open discourse.
Believe me, I appreciate fully the irony of the internet side of the IMC being the most heavily restricted area of the IMC's public discourse. When I was in CU though, I found that I only had a finite number of hours in a day, and even though I didn't like all of the directions which the bodies I was involved in were going, I found I had to pick and choose my battles.
Now that I live in Chicago though, I have an infinite amount of hours in a day which has been very helpful ;)
Here's an email from ML about UCIMC editorial policy: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/imc-web/2007-June/002276.html . It looks like UCIMC may be facing a few other issues as well: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/imc/2007-June/007062.html