Propaganda & Indymedia

Von

Originally posted by Sand
Why do they ask politicians for interviews, or ask players for their thoughts on a game? Because their independant media organisations or because theyre actually deeply involved in what the current "story" is about? IndyMedia wasnt founded to provide a balanced, fair and accurate account of the news - Its simply out there to get across the Lefts views - i.e. propaganda.

Y’see this is the problem. You deal almost exclusively in vague sweeping generalisations like this and try to make words mean what you want them to mean. No evidence, no context, nothing. Perverting language is a classic propaganda tactic by the way. I’ve no idea what someone who holds the opinion that the Nazis were left wing would consider balanced, fair and accurate reporting so do go ahead and explain what “the Left’s views” are if you can. You may find that the “Left’s views” and the “Right’s views” are not always as diametrically opposite and simply defined as you would like to believe. Although it’s easy to see how much easier life would be if that were the case, especially for some economists and petty bureaucrats who like nothing better than a perfectly ordered world where everything is conveniently weighed, valued, boxed and labelled, in the real world people tend to be a little bit more complicated than they’re often given credit for. Issues covered by Indymedia, like ethnic cleansing, GMO’s, corporate crime, basic human rights etc, are not the preserve of “the Left”. The war is another case in point. I don't know if you've bothered to pay attention, but over the course of the last year the justifications for invading Iraq have changed three or four times, each new rationale being the result of the incredulity or illegality of the previous one. Now Blair has suddenly discovered religion as a grand rationale for disposing of Hussein - the "moral" pretext for regime change -as each preceding rationale has been demonstrated to be based on bollocks.

To suggest as some have done, that the protests against going to war against Iraq are by "leftists" or that anyone opposed to the war is “objectively” supporting Saddam Hussein is either a short-circuit of reason or an outright attempt to distort reality which is what propaganda is. In the Sindo, flip flopping, war supporting, armchair general Eoghan Harris, either through ignorance or wilful deception, likes to quote George Orwell who once said that pacifists were objectively pro-Nazi. However Orwell rubbished that kind of logic later saying for example that by the same token, anyone who criticised the Soviet Union could be accused of objectively aiding the Nazis, which of course would be nonsense. So it is with Indymedia and the war. The issue of war crosses political lines and boundaries. In fact, if you haven't noticed, the official "left" in Britain advocates war, while the official left in Germany is totally opposed. The right in France (and elsewhere) advocates the UN route, while the right in the US advocates war. Like a lot of the truly gullible and lazy, you've bought the propaganda line that Iraq is the problem, hook, line and sinker, whereas the vast majority of people opposed to the war believe that hypocrisy is the main problem.

Perhaps its time, Sand, that you went outside for a long long walk and thought about these anomalies that seem to indicate a seismic upheaval and paradigm shift in Western society, instead of parroting the latest soundbite from Bush and co, siding with erm...over-zealous security forces (you will no doubt be dismayed to learn about how the Italian police fabricated evidence to justify beating people up at the G8 summit in Genoa BBC) and accusing anyone who reports something that might cause you to get out off your arse and re-assess your opinions, as being “gullible”. The most ludicrous thing about your views, on Indymedia and other issues, is the hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is always a sign of a mendacious and addled mind, a mind that has already given up the struggle for truth, openness and honesty in favour of the comforts of illusion and the uncritical unconditional childish faith in the weight rather than the quality of authority.

What else, ah yeah, around 1996 I believe, the Mexican terrorist/human rights advocate (whatever you prefer) subcommandante Marcos asked for the setting up of something like Indymedia to cover issues and events that the mainstream media either ignored or misrepresented. For example, protests against this or that would only get coverage if something got smashed but even then there was no serious attempt to examine the issues that caused the protests in the first place. While some lacked the basic human curiousity and critical faculties required to look beyond the images of rioting and whatnot, others found Indymedia to be an interesting source of first hand video and eyewitness evidence which more often than not, cast doubt on the official version of events. Surely, in order to make an informed judgement on anything, the more evidence you have from as many sources as possible, the better.

Indymedia is independent in the sense that they are non-commercial, they don’t push any party line and anyone can contribute, even you. So instead of whining about how biased and unfair it is, contribute your own views or better still set up your own worldwide network of sites. If a bunch of lazy spoilt guilty liberal middle class soap dodging commie thug kids can do it, surely you with your incredible prodesque work ethic can do it much much better.

DeVore

Excuse the **** out of me but could you please point me at where I said that?

Von, I'm surprised at you.

Btw the only thread on boards I can find in a search for IndyMedia and my name is this:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=83595&highlight=IndyMedia

That quote doesnt even make sense to me and I'm *supposed* to have written it????

DeV.

DeVore

ok something makes me think that you meant to attribute that to Sand.

I really hope so.


DeV.

Von

Yes indeed. One of the more spirited desk slaves I employ to knock out hackery and the like thought it'd be "funny." As punishment, the chains have been tightened, a furious drunken beating has been administered and order has been restored for now.

Cork

If a bunch of lazy spoilt guilty liberal middle class soap dodging commie thug kids can do it, surely you with your incredible prodesque work ethic can do it much much better.

Would these "commie thug kids " ever notice that the cold war is over.

It is time to put the parents "hippie" magazines back in tyhe attic.

DeVore

I was wondering... its a tad unnerving to have Sands words attributed to oneself

I didnt even agree with them which was the freakiest part! I'd have to start arguing with myself!!


DeV.

Sand

Y’see this is the problem. You deal almost exclusively in vague sweeping generalisations like this and try to make words mean what you want them to mean.

I actually used the words of the indymedia founders themselves from their "about" page. Vast wild generalisations indeed.

reporting so do go ahead and explain what “the Left’s views” are if you can.

Not the purpose of the thread surely, given the title? Waffle?

You may find that the “Left’s views” and the “Right’s views” are not always as diametrically opposite and simply defined as you would like to believe.

Of course not, the left and the right agree on some basic issues, and disagree on many others. Left and right arent even always good divisions either. You may consider me to be on the right, but precisely because Im on the right I hold far more liberal views on many matters than do many who would consider themselves on the left.

Although it’s easy to see how much easier life would be if that were the case, especially for some economists and petty bureaucrats who like nothing better than a perfectly ordered world where everything is conveniently weighed, valued, boxed and labelled

Waffle.

Issues covered by Indymedia, like ethnic cleansing, GMO’s, corporate crime, basic human rights etc, are not the preserve of “the Left”.

more waffle.

The war is another case in point. I don't know if you've bothered to pay attention, but over the course of the last year the justifications for invading Iraq have changed three or four times, each new rationale being the result of the incredulity or illegality of the previous one. Now Blair has suddenly discovered religion as a grand rationale for disposing of Hussein - the "moral" pretext for regime change -as each preceding rationale has been demonstrated to be based on bollocks.

More waffle - Will you wake me when we get to the issue at hand?

To suggest as some have done, that the protests against going to war against Iraq are by "leftists" or that anyone opposed to the war is “objectively” supporting Saddam Hussein is either a short-circuit of reason or an outright attempt to distort reality which is what propaganda is. In the Sindo, flip flopping, war supporting, armchair general Eoghan Harris, either through ignorance or wilful deception, likes to quote George Orwell who once said that pacifists were objectively pro-Nazi. However Orwell rubbished that kind of logic later saying for example that by the same token, anyone who criticised the Soviet Union could be accused of objectively aiding the Nazis, which of course would be nonsense.

I hear ya, but Im still waiting till the point when you get to the point where you show me how impartial and balanced indymedia is.....

The issue of war crosses political lines and boundaries. In fact, if you haven't noticed, the official "left" in Britain advocates war, while the official left in Germany is totally opposed. The right in France (and elsewhere) advocates the UN route, while the right in the US advocates war. Like a lot of the truly gullible and lazy, you've bought the propaganda line that Iraq is the problem, hook, line and sinker, whereas the vast majority of people opposed to the war believe that hypocrisy is the main problem.

Can you tell me why you used "left" for Blairs party and plain old left for Schroeders? Youre attempting to state that the left itself disagrees amongst itself but you obviously seem to think theres a difference between the two lefts, it doesnt seem that you feel one really deserves the title of left and hence the " "?

Perhaps its time, Sand, that you went outside for a long long walk and thought about these anomalies that seem to indicate a seismic upheaval and paradigm shift in Western society, instead of parroting the latest soundbite from Bush and co, siding with erm...over-zealous security forces (you will no doubt be dismayed to learn about how the Italian police fabricated evidence to justify beating people up at the G8 summit in Genoa BBC) and accusing anyone who reports something that might cause you to get out off your arse and re-assess your opinions, as being “gullible”.

My Von, more lies. As you no doubt full well know I didnt state that it was the gullible doing the reporting, rather those believing it was in anyway independant. Perhaps you should go out and take a walk and ask yourself why youre unable to make a point without lying?

The most ludicrous thing about your views, on Indymedia and other issues, is the hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is always a sign of a mendacious and addled mind, a mind that has already given up the struggle for truth, openness and honesty in favour of the comforts of illusion and the uncritical unconditional childish faith in the weight rather than the quality of authority.

More waffle.

What else, ah yeah, around 1996 I believe, the Mexican terrorist/human rights advocate (whatever you prefer) subcommandante Marcos asked for the setting up of something like Indymedia to cover issues and events that the mainstream media either ignored or misrepresented. For example, protests against this or that would only get coverage if something got smashed but even then there was no serious attempt to examine the issues that caused the protests in the first place.

Thats nice- he was looking for a fair, honest and impartial reporter of the truth or an organisation to publicise his woes and what he felt was wrong with the system then?

While some lacked the basic human curiousity and critical faculties required to look beyond the images of rioting and whatnot, others found Indymedia to be an interesting source of first hand video and eyewitness evidence which more often than not, cast doubt on the official version of events. Surely, in order to make an informed judgement on anything, the more evidence you have from as many sources as possible, the better.

Oh yeah sure. Indymedia can be viewed as a source of information. Much as for example some right wing fascist website can be viewed as a source of information. Indeed a right wing fascist will no doubt tell you its independant, that its reporting the truth the left wing media is suppressing yadayada. Neither can be trusted as an independant reporter of the truth however as both are being used to push a certain line.

Indymedia is independent in the sense that they are non-commercial, they don’t push any party line and anyone can contribute, even you. So instead of whining about how biased and unfair it is, contribute your own views or better still set up your own worldwide network of sites. If a bunch of lazy spoilt guilty liberal middle class soap dodging commie thug kids can do it, surely you with your incredible prodesque work ethic can do it much much better.

I agree theyre independant in the sense theyre non -commercial. After that its by the converted, for the converted. By all means, feel free to consider it passionate tellings of the truth, as far as Im concerned any organisation which is not set up soley to report freely and independantly of all ( who knows, maybe the evil media corporations are telling the truth this time despite the inferrance in Indymedias "about" page that theyre always evil ) sources of influence have no right to call themselves an independant media source. As the organisation itself states it was set up to provide information from the seattle riots to the media by apparently independant media organisations and activists ( they make a differentiation for some reason ? ). Independant? They call themselves Indymedia - well now I dont know what to think!

Von chop down on the waffle in your reply please. Im not going to be distrated by divisionary tactics and crap like that. If youve not got a case to show how impartical and fair Indymedia is then pumping it full of waffle and sly wisecracks isnt going to help you, though Ive got to say Ive always admired polite putdowns. Like I said before, were not in the playground anymore.

I was wondering... its a tad unnerving to have Sands words attributed to oneself

:eek: Hi Dev !

DadaKopf

Waffle.

Sand, if you want to challenge someone, please do it constructively. If you keep replying with pathetically dismissive statements like that, people will start thinking you have nothing to say because you know you've been licked but won't admit it. More than anything it shows just how deeply prejudiced you are, and we all know that prejudice is a form of ignorance.

All Von was saying, really, is that Indymedia is an open-source news service that tries to redress the imbalance that the mainstream media, with its various vested interests, sets up. News by its very nature is going to involve a level of subjectivity - to that extent, any news can be construed as propaganda. However, propaganda is, by definition, more systematic and more mendacious - propaganda itself grows from prejudice into abusive manipulation.

Now, you can apply all the prejudices you like to Indymedia for its "leftie" politics, you can call it "propaganda", dismiss it and ignore it. That's your call, but you're only re-confirming your own prejudices. You're rejecting the validity of what thousands if not millions of people around the world have to say because they don't fit into your limited world view. Since you dismiss "leftie" reportage out of hand, you haven't anything to balance your view of the world.

You can continue to complain and dismiss anything you want but unless you start accepting other people's views as valid, you're going to continue to be led by "rightie's" propaganda as much as you accuse the left of.

Sand

Sand, if you want to challenge someone, please do it constructively.

Apparently Vons challenging my view that Indymedia is a propaganda tool for leftie activists.

If you keep replying with pathetically dismissive statements like that, people will start thinking you have nothing to say because you know you've been licked but won't admit it. More than anything it shows just how deeply prejudiced you are, and we all know that prejudice is a form of ignorance.

Actually Im just not going to be distracted from the issue at hand - I feel Indymedia isnt a reliable independant media organisation, Von disagrees - thats the issue, thats what is at hand as stated in the title of the thread. Anything else is waffle, padding, an attempt to camoflage a weak argument. The use of waffle is in itself an admisson that there isnt much of a case to discuss.

All Von was saying, really, is that Indymedia is an open-source news service that tries to redress the imbalance that the mainstream media, with its various vested interests, sets up. News by its very nature is going to involve a level of subjectivity - to that extent, any news can be construed as propaganda. However, propaganda is, by definition, more systematic and more mendacious - propaganda itself grows from prejudice into abusive manipulation.

Certainly, but an organisation set up for anything other than independant reporting of information isnt independant, or reliable. Especially an organisation set up by appaprently independant media organisations and activists to do PR for the seattle riots. You might as well ask MUTV to provide unbiased reporting of man uniteds games.

Now, you can apply all the prejudices you like to Indymedia for its "leftie" politics, you can call it "propaganda", dismiss it and ignore it.

Im not dismissing it as propaganda because of what stories it covers, though it appears to have an extremely narrow focus - Im dismissing it because of who founded it and why.

You can continue to complain and dismiss anything you want but unless you start accepting other people's views as valid, you're going to continue to be led by "rightie's" propaganda as much as you accuse the left of.

Im happy to accept valid points of view, and ill criticise points of view I do not find valid - if the only counter is waffle and psychoanalysis with a distinct lack of substance regarding the actual point of view at hand then Ill have to question just how valid that point of view is.

Here, Ill help you guys out in how to get a counter argument. My main problem is with the fact this organisation was set up to cover the seattle riots and provide pr for them by activists - their term. I cant view them as anything other than propaganda due to that. How can an organisation set up like that , and for that purpose be considered fair and impartial when reporting news items? The only people I can see fooling themselves that its impartial are the already converted who can now comftably read up on the days events without having the prejudices challenged, because their prejudices are shared by the people giving them news.

DeVore

Sand,

You use the terms Truth and Lies in your reply to Von a number of times. I happen to have a keen interest in this area from my personal life and so without prejudice or ulterior motive I'd like to ask you one simple question:

How are you judging this?


I'll expand the question for clarity. You say:

Oh yeah sure. Indymedia can be viewed as a source of information. Much as for example some right wing fascist website can be viewed as a source of information. Indeed a right wing fascist will no doubt tell you its independant, that its reporting the truth the left wing media is suppressing yadayada. Neither can be trusted as an independant reporter of the truth however as both are being used to push a certain line.

If you take this approach surely anyone who has enough interest/commitment to build a website is already suspect of having an ulterior motive behind its purpose.

Indeed anyone who writes something and publishes it, does so not to have written it but to have some else read it. Unless they are paid journalists in which case their master's political will must be viewed as a possible contaminant...


Surely then all external information can be considered to a greater or lesser degree *tainted*.


If I might ask another question: What news sources DO you find credible and why?

Honest, genuine question seeking an honest genuine answer...

DeV.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
ndyMedia wasnt founded to provide a balanced, fair and accurate account of the news - Its simply out there to get across the Lefts views - i.e. propaganda.

...

I actually used the words of the indymedia founders themselves from their "about" page. Vast wild generalisations indeed.

Can you supply a link to where the indymedia founders state that their purpose is to disseminate propaganda?

Also could you point out where they use the term "Left" on their about page,

The search function on my browser seems to be broken...it cant find either word anywhere on that page.

Seeing as you're classing them as propagandists, I'm sure you'd want to make sure that your own statements were factually correct and not misleading spin themselves.

So - links please?

jc

Surely then all external information can be considered to a greater or lesser degree *tainted*.

To this i agree totally. All media is going to be biased to some degree. The info we read in the west will in all likelyhood going to be different than what we might read in the East. All media is suspect.

In the case of Indymedia, I don't like reading it too much since its very one sided. I'm not too much into this whole right or left wing politics thingy, so i'm not going to be so specific, however there is a huge trend for indymedia to be totally anti-governmental, & very green issued.

Perhaps my perception of Indymedia is flawed. But thats the way i see em, at the moment. I do however go back every few weeks to se if its become more balanced, and i've yet to see it become so.

Sand

Can you supply a link to where the indymedia founders state that their purpose is to disseminate propaganda?

From Indymedia.ies about page

The Independent Media Centre is a network of collectively run media outlets for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of the truth. We work out of a love and inspiration for people who continue to work for a better world, despite corporate media's distortions and unwillingness to cover the efforts to free humanity.

The original Independent Media Centre (www.indymedia.org), was established by various independent and alternative media organizations and activists for the purpose of providing grassroots coverage of the World Trade Organization (WTO) protests in Seattle last November. The centre acted as a clearinghouse of information for journalists, and provided up-to-the-minute reports, photos, audio and video footage through its website.

Also if you check out indymedia.org, the "mother ship" youll see that these independant reporters of the truth arent just reporting the news, theyre putting themselves there as human shields -i.e. not passively reporting the truth, theyve picked a side that the war shouldnt go ahead, theyve gone so far as to make themselves human shields and you trust them to give a fair and balanced report?

Three persons from IMC Norway are now inside Baghdad as "human shields" and to report back to IMC what is going on.

Under "IMC Reporting (and that aint all is it ) From Baghdad"

http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=242163&group=webcast

How are you judging this?

Personally I look at who is giving me the report, and I ask myself what links to the "story" do they have. I wouldnt trust a right wing fascists account of the holocaust, because quite clearly their view is biased by their politics. The same can be said of indymedia, its founded by activists, its not founded for the purpose of getting the truth, but rather initially to provide PR for Seattle and then later it grew to cover "efforts to free humanity" - are they referring to Seattle and its children here? - and its reporters dont go to Iraq to provide information - they go to Iraq to act as human shields, again firmly nailing their colours to the mast - will they give any arguments for invading Iraq fair coverage? I doubt it seeing as theyre so against the war theyre willing to risk their own lives to prevent it.

As you say, all information we receive is tainted to some degree - it can often be tainted by simply what is given a full page spread, or just a small column, or not reported at all. Journalists have to be watched as well, one particular Times journalist Ive read seems to use some colourful language and turns of phrase that betrays her feelings on certain issues, whilst another would also have some rather strongly held feelings on the IRA - Im sympathetic but Im also aware he shouldnt be trusted to give a completely fair account.

In such cases you can simply trust editorial control ( Id prefer not to, and in any case Im not sure Indymedia has a editor to validate stories to ensure pure tripe isnt written - from what Ive been told anyone can contribute so who knows ) or you can simply try to get the who,what, why, when and how from a piece and do your best to ignore the rest.Thats far easier to do with some sources than with others

If Im looking for the fairest account I can reasonably find I wont be going to Indymedia or its counterparts in the right wing. Whilst Indymedia sneers at corporate media distortions they do tend at least to bother to get two sides of a story, something they didnt seem to do in the Shannon protests as far as I can see. Because theyre actually detached from the protests and dispute around it they can provide a fairer account than say the activists themselves could, using indymedia.

Koopa

Sand:
Anything else is waffle, padding, an attempt to camoflage a weak argument. The use of waffle is in itself an admisson that there isnt much of a case to discuss.

waffle

pickarooney

Mmmmm, waffles...

Carry on.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
and you trust them to give a fair and balanced report?

No, but I dont trust any media to give me a fair and balanced report, so thats hardly relevant.

My point was that Von was arguing against your use of the term Propaganda, and the term Left - claiming that you are simply using vauge sweeping generalisations.

Your defence was that you simply took the words from their about page. Surely it would be more honest to say that you took the words from their about page and turned them into vague sweeping generalisations.

You have translated "activist" into "the Left".
You have translated "radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of the truth" into "propaganda".

Now, dont get me wrong...I dont classify Indymedia's credibility or quality much higher than you appear to, but if you are going to say you havent made any sweeping generalisations but have used their words, then you could at least show where they used the words? All I'm seeing are generalistations which you used which are not used on their about page.

One other thing - your basic defence to avoid discussing much of what was raised at the start of the thread has been along the lines of :

thats the issue, thats what is at hand as stated in the title of the thread. Anything else is waffle, padding, an attempt to camoflage a weak argument

I'm not sure I understand your argument here...you are saying that Von is straying off topic on the first post??? Surely the first post is what defines the topic moreso than the heading? I could understand if he was bringing some new slant half-way through a thread, but your refusal "to be distracted" into addressing the questions asked in the first postis a bit disingenuous.

jc

Sand

No, but I dont trust any media to give me a fair and balanced report, so thats hardly relevant.

Isnt it? Seeing as its indymedias credentials as an independant, unbiased media organisation that are in question?

You have translated "activist" into "the Left".

Youre right, how could I thought that. The site is practically crawling with right wingers and coverage of right wing rallies and activities.

You have translated "radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of the truth" into "propaganda".

Yes, I deeply question why it isnt enough to have an accurate telling of the truth, but rather it must be radical and passionate as well. Reading their shannon piece which was written entirely from the view of the protestors without any attempt to seek another viewpoint ( Well the guards did get featured, in a "My, arent they scary looking NWO types" kind of way) I understand what they mean about radical and passionate.

Now, dont get me wrong...I dont classify Indymedia's credibility or quality much higher than you appear to,

So now youre agreeing their a left wing propaganda machine?
What is your problem with me describing them as what you pretty much agree they are?

I'm not sure I understand your argument here...you are saying that Von is straying off topic on the first post??? Surely the first post is what defines the topic moreso than the heading? I could understand if he was bringing some new slant half-way through a thread, but your refusal "to be distracted" into addressing the questions asked in the first postis a bit disingenuous.

No worries Bonkey Ill make it all clear.

As youll have noticed, Von has indeed made the first post on this thread. He has however made this post in reply to a quote of mine. This could lead to a mind bending paradox of which came first, the first post or the quote it refers to.

Luckily, no such paradox exists because this quote came from another thread (Welcome to New World Order Ireland I think it was ), which Gandalf closed - I wouldnt like to second guess the man, but Id assume it would have to do with Vons novel views on how to counter a viewpoint (namely he got into a strop because I described indymedia as laughable propaganda ) - attack the poster. Whilst closing it, Gandalf indicated that if indymedia and propganda was such a great debate piece to open a new thread. I didnt mind as I figured it was case closed, but Von opened this thread to continue that debate.

So you see - not really that headscratching to refuse to be dragged into a waffling contest when Vons original beef is about my opinion of Indymedia which has apaprently shocked him into launching abusive tirades and posting about it over two threads, still with little or no argument as to why Indymedia is apparently independant or unbiased.


Now whilst "The lefts Views -Discuss" makes a wonderful essay title Im not going to waste my time restating my opinions, when Vons original problem is with my opinion of Indymedia.

The same goes for utilitarian views of the world, and the evils of statistics.

The same goes for Indymedias rather narrow focus.

The same goes for another debate over Iraq ( Ive noticed that youre unhappy that your interesting "responsibility" thread was/is? being hi-jacked for another Iraq war debate ) and what Harris thinks, and what Von thinks about what Harris thinks, and what Orwell thinks about people who think people who disagree with them are agreeing with the other side, and most hilariously how the left disagrees with itself despite the fact Von cant bring himself to describe Labour as plain old left - undermining his own point because it seems he doesnt really believe Labour can be described as lefties. The same goes for whether Von thinks Im gullible and lazy because I disagree with him over Iraq

The same goes for Vons free ( and you get what you pay for dont you? ) psycho-analysis, and the same goes for the Genoa riots and the police there. And the same goes for his lies, and the same goes for his view Im a hypocrite.

In fact, Id guess that less than 5% of his post actually attempted to make a case that Indymedia lived up to its name.

The rest was pure waffle - some of it no doubt worthy of a seperate thread but used here simply to distract from what Vons original problem was - I view Indymedia as laughabole propaganda and Von is upset by that.

I thought his arguments were weak in the last thread, trying to distract and move off the point ( opening another thread to do it too ) doesnt make them any stronger.

Éomer of Rohan

You might actually value the opinions of a left winger on this matter lol. I personally think the views posted on Indymedia are childish, pointless and certainly not leftwing; which is why I came here on the recommendation of a friend. The political activist group Socialist Youth actually have tried to intervene as is their duty in Indymedia but it is practically controlled by the Socialist Workers Party and other political extremists masquerading as socialists and left wingers when in fact the are militarist and often 'republican' in the NI sense of the word. I would back up this with quotes but it has been ages since I have used Indymedia and can't actually remember how to.

DeVore

Sand.... you do realise that quite a number of people would regard you as "right wing" and authoritarian in your views... so its no wonder (by you're own argument) that you are opposed to Indymedia (I'm being slightly facetious here... but only slightly! )


You've already agreed with me that ALL communication especially news reportage is suspect to a greater or lesser extent for one or more of several reasons outlined, so I dont see why you need to pick out Indymedia specifically any more then (say) the Guardian.


I'd also question how you are coming to the conclusion that what they reporting ISNT the honest truth. I'll admit that their language raises doubts in my mind but I can also tell you I've seen the footage a friend of mine took of the RTS mayday march and Indymedias reportage of it (while slanted and colourful) was a LOT closer to it then the minor coverage it got in the "main stream balanced media".


So I have 3 more questions for you:


1. On what grounds and with what authority are you setting yourself up as the judge of Truth and Knowledge in this case?

2. Could you be wrong?

3. Which news sources do you consider the *closest* thing to impartial reportage.



DeV.

Lemming

Originally posted by Sand
Youre right, how could I thought that. The site is practically crawling with right wingers and coverage of right wing rallies and activities.

Sand, a lack of "right-wing" bias does not necessarily equate to "left-wing" by default. I think that was a point that several posters were tying to make in your attitude towards Indymedia however rightly or wrongly they may report an issue.

So now youre agreeing their a left wing propaganda machine?
What is your problem with me describing them as what you pretty much agree they are?

<devil's advocate>
What if they're not "left wing" as you claim? What if they're just anti-right-wing-bullsh*t ?? What doe that make them then?

I'm against the current government in Ireland. Does that make me a socialist? Does that make me an anarchist? No. I'm just anti-berttttie & Co-bullsh*t.
</devil's advocate>

Victor

I wonder which is more unbalanced? Indymedia's comments page or a ISME press release rehashed as "news" in The Sunday Business Post? (My answer is leaning towards the latter).

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Youre right, how could I thought that. The site is practically crawling with right wingers and coverage of right wing rallies and activities.

You are as well aware as I that there is a difference between an organisation being "of the Left", and being representative of the Left, or being "The Left".

Your original comment, as quoted by Von, puts it squarely in the latter of these, which is nothing but a generalisation.

If I tried to claim that some small corrupt party in some Eastern European nation was "European Politics", I would be slammed left right and centre for making such an absurd generalisation.

I see your original comment as making the same type of generalisation. Indymedia are not getting across "The Left's views" - they are a leftist organisation offering one possible set of leftist views.

On a similar vein, you imply that the lefts views are nothing but propaganda, which is nothing but a sweeping generalisation.

So now youre agreeing their a left wing propaganda machine?
What is your problem with me describing them as what you pretty much agree they are?

Because I distinguish between something which is "a left wing propaganda machine", and something which is putting forward "the Lefts views, i.e. propaganda".

One is a pretty accurate statement of fact, while the other takes it and turns it into a generalisation about all of the left and all of their views.

As I said....I have no objection to the criticism of Indymedia. A lot of it is, IMHO, merited.

What I do have is an objection to the way in which that criticism was originally phrased, because it just turns the entire comment into a generalised slur on the Left, rather than on IndyMedia.

Your "defence" of having used this generalisation is that you used IndyMedia's own words. I now see that your clarifiction has changed that to something more like "I took Indymedia's words, and based my comments on my interpretation of them".

I have no objection to that either...but again, how you phrased your initial clarification here was both inaccurate and misleading. You didnt use their words - you interpreted what they wrote.

At the end of the day, if your attack is aimed only at Indymedia, then I'm quite happy to either say that you worded it poorly, or I'm reading too much into your sentence structure.

On the other hand, if the generalisations are deliberate, then you talking about propaganda is little more than just a case of the pot calling the kettle black from what I can see.

jc

Victor

Is it a matter of bias or slant. Each media outlet has a certain target audience. Surely Indymedia is just gearing itself to that market. The difference agaisnt sat the Sunday Business Post is you have to pay them for an idiotic article as opposed to getting it free.

Originally posted by Sand
Youre right, how could I thought that. The site is practically crawling with right wingers and coverage of right wing rallies and activities.

Try www.thepost.ie or http://www.ratherbiased.com/ instead. Both are just as unbiased as Indymedia.

On Dan Rather's show last night he did a neutral bit on anti-French protests. It included one demonstrater with a "Give war a chance" banner. :rolleyes:

Von

Pretty much everything I touched on in the first post was relevant to the theme of propaganda and/or indymedia so I dunno what all this “waffle” business is in aid of. My understanding of propaganda is that it involves perpetuating sterotypes and deliberately omitting, distorting or inventing facts. If indymedia has been guilty of any such activities I'd be interested to see specific examples and where they've been corrected. Otherwise the "laughable propaganda" accusation can't hope to stick.

Whether indymedia or any professional media organisation holds this or that editorial view on particular issues is secondary. First and foremost, it's material facts and how they're presented to the public that matters.

DeVore

I'm still just waiting for an answer to my questions...

DeV.

Sand

You've already agreed with me that ALL communication especially news reportage is suspect to a greater or lesser extent for one or more of several reasons outlined, so I dont see why you need to pick out Indymedia specifically any more then (say) the Guardian.

Well Indymedia is at one end of the spectrum, you can have reporters who are so biased their reports practically come with a membership card for whatever party they belong too, or one where the bias is almost undetectable. Now when I read Indymedias report of the Shannon Protest and its wholly lacking of any viewpoint on the days events apart from the protestors then Im thinking theyre not too interested in the truth, just their own version of the truth. When I read their sending their reporters out their to do some reporting and on the side engage act as willing hostages then I begin to wonder just how objective those reporters are, and who running Indymedia seriously is going to stand over their reports on Indymedia as being objective and wholly unbiased - that seems to be less the stance of an organisation seeking the truth than an organisation thats simply looking for its own pre-determined version of the truth.

On the other hand youve got your mainstream media. These do tend to seek at least a counter view from the other side in any "story". They dont tend to enlist activists (Politicial here, but you could substitute for any given protagonist in a "story" ) for as reporters - you might use say Ryan Giggs to give his *opinion* on Uniteds season and advertise it as such, you wouldnt/couldnt expect him to give a fair and balanced report of a United game - which might require criticising his team mates - by name, or his boss, or even his fans. Whilst the main stream media do tend to vary in their viewpoints, and their editorials and opinion pieces often - and indeed are intended to - betray those viewpoints they do tend to report the who,what,where, how and why fairly accurately, and tend to seek comment from both involved parties, and try to do so with accuracy full stop.

1. On what grounds and with what authority are you setting yourself up as the judge of Truth and Knowledge in this case?

On the grounds of my opinion, for which I need no permisson, but must simply justify as I belive I have done, your honour.

Its not my declaring myself the Judge of Truth and Knowledge that raised Vons ire, as I never did - I voiced my opinion that Indymedia was laughable propaganda and thats what got him into a strop.

2. Could you be wrong?

On a matter of opinion? If I couldnt justify my opinion perhaps - but I believe I have. Ive yet to be convinced that an organisation that sends its reporters to act as anything other than passive observers is anywhere near trustworthy as a reporter, no matter - and indeed because of - what lofty and political goals they may have.

The actual idea that reporters should *never* be anything other than passive observers was something I recognised after watching an interview on the Late Late Show of a Irish photojournalist ( Sorry, my memory is crap but this was 3 or 4 years ago at least ) and he talked about that his job wasnt to fix the ills of the world - he couldnt, no single person can - but to provide the rest of the world with the truth, and assuming they cared they would fix it. Thats how he justifed reporting on a famine in Africa where thousands were starving all around him but he had access to food as a journalist.

I allow though that someone could rationalise to me how you can be a protagonist and yet an objective neutral reporter of the truth. Id find it hard to see how it could be done though. They have a phrase about victors and history for a reason.

3. Which news sources do you consider the *closest* thing to impartial reportage.

As stated Id consider the mainstream media as your best bet of accurate coverage. If youre asking specifically what media sources I read/watch/whatever then I read the Irish Times, Irish Mirror (Sport), Newsweek/Times ( Both obviously the american point of view on anything with the given bias, but they do tend to have a lot of indepth info on subjects which tend to get glossed over elsewhere as well as some words from the horses mouth of international affairs), TV and Radio news, and of course Google - for finding more info on something that might have grabbed my intention. Id rank the Times as the most reliable, Newsweek/Time as the least given its bias, and Google as extremely variable given you can run straight into the arms of Indymedia-esque sites .

Sand, a lack of "right-wing" bias does not necessarily equate to "left-wing" by default.

You noted the sarcasm but you didnt take it far enough.

What if they're not "left wing" as you claim?

If theyre the center or even right then the left is scarier than anyone ever imagined.

On a similar vein, you imply that the lefts views are nothing but propaganda, which is nothing but a sweeping generalisation.

Please bonkey - I tire of attempts to corrupt what was said.

It is my opinion that Indymedia is laughable propaganda. But seeing as your intrest was raised by the comment Von described as a sweeping generalisation lets see it one more time....

"IndyMedia wasnt founded to provide a balanced, fair and accurate account of the news - Its simply out there to get across the Lefts views - i.e. propaganda. "

The first half is my opinon, and as Ive stated I think Ive justified it. Now the second is where youve seemed to have zoned in on so lets treat that in detail. It ( being Indymedia ) is simply out there ( exists for the purpose of ) to get across ( communicate, convince others of ) the Lefts views ( a political idealogy ) -i.e. Propaganda

Indymedia exists to communicate the lefts views, not to seek to report accurately the truth - this I can feel fairly safe in describing as propaganda. To be on the safeside I went all Typedef on it and visited Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Propaganda.

The first definition matches perfectly Indymedia as far as Im concerned: "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. "

Why the bold? Simply because when you dont seek the second side to a story youre reflecting the views and interests of those advocating the cause/doctrine you do cover. When youre getting reports from human shields youre reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a cause or doctrine.

Because I distinguish between something which is "a left wing propaganda machine", and something which is putting forward "the Lefts views, i.e. propaganda".

Quote out of context bonkey?- dont worry, Ive already corrected your error above with the quote you refer to and explained how a site that exists only to get across the the lefts views can be described a left wing propaganda machine.

What I do have is an objection to the way in which that criticism was originally phrased, because it just turns the entire comment into a generalised slur on the Left, rather than on IndyMedia.

When you quote me out of context Im sure you could find proof Im a card carrying member of the Socialist Workers Party and a committed advocate of class warfare.

I have no objection to that either...but again, how you phrased your initial clarification here was both inaccurate and misleading. You didnt use their words - you interpreted what they wrote.

Doesnt everyone do that? Do you take hook line and sinker what George Bush tells you? No? Are you interpreting his words perhaps? Is that unusual in some way to determine/evaluate what a person is really saying? The only thing weve done differently is youve interpreted their words differently - actually wait no you havent you agree with me as to what they are.

Please Bonkey.

At the end of the day, if your attack is aimed only at Indymedia, then I'm quite happy to either say that you worded it poorly, or I'm reading too much into your sentence structure.

Ive got plenty to say on the left, but in this case I was referring only to Indymedia as you well know ( I referred to it specifically by name ). Did I word it poorly? Perhaps. It doesnt help when someone attempts to quote you out of context and act as if thats your position. And yes, you probably did read *far* too much into my sentence structure or your revision of it.

Is it a matter of bias or slant.

Even a slanted report would bother to seek the other sides view if only so it could put its own slant on their words.

Pretty much everything I touched on in the first post was relevant to the theme of propaganda and/or indymedia

It isnt a case of and/or though is it? If it was we could discuss the the linguistic roots of the word propaganda, examples of propaganda throughout history, new methodologies of propaganda blah blah, none of which has much to do with your anger over my opinion that Indymedia is laughable propaganda. As it is weve had to review sentences for their hidden meanings.

If indymedia has been guilty of any such activities I'd be interested to see specific examples and where they've been corrected. Otherwise the "laughable propaganda" accusation can't hope to stick.

Hey when you handily ignore the examples Ive already given you bringing you more is merely a waste of my time isnt it? And my good old friend dictionary.com disagrees with your definition of propaganda:D

I'm still just waiting for an answer to my questions...

Sorry Dev, cant find the time all of the time and all that.

Later.

DeVore

Thats ok, I wasnt being prissy... and you've answered them now but now its my turn to plead lack of time as I'm going abroad tomorrow and I have to pack

DeV.