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

alternative media | police / legal

Please post all the points of IndyMedia Editorial Policy

Please post all the points of IndyMedia Editorial Policy
Please post all the points of IndyMedia Editorial Policy

Because 278022 the thrilling, "Indy Media/Portland Is it a government plot" was sent to the compost bin and as there are no leaders which rule by decree would you please post the policy. Most important point 5 & 9 since thety were sighted. Thank you in advance for yuor attention to this matter.

ed policy 09.Jan.2004 14:17

indy volunteer

That is the link to the editorial policy. If you are ever posting a comment or a publishing an article, there are four links just above the first "field" that include "how to publish, editorial policy, preparing media, and using html"

Please review the following 09.Jan.2004 14:26


After reviewing the arcticle and the points, shown below, used to remove the piece, this is just a judgemnet call. So anything can be censored. Thanks for making the site weaker. Trolls may not have more rights, but they do get more space.

What training, if any is require to be an editor at this site.

5. are intended to disrupt the site


a response 09.Jan.2004 14:35


No offense meant but there have been a lot of reactionary criticisms of this site as of late. The editorial policy is at the top of the posting pages and is very prominent. Would it kill people to look before they leap into an unfounded criticism or request? I mean, it's not that the editorial policy is not posted, it's just that people don't bother reading it. Perhaps it would be nice for new people to have some sort of tutorial or guide to the site (and yes I took the time to look). Also, maybe this should be on the questions page.

I propose an amendment 09.Jan.2004 14:56


> 9. are obviously incorrect or misleading, including attempts to spread dis-information

If this were enforced, most of the posts would need to be deleted...

editorial policy 09.Jan.2004 15:03

another indy volunteer

If anyone has disagreements with the editorial policy they are welcome to come to a general meeting to discuss the matter.

I agree with Jlii 09.Jan.2004 15:03


I don't usually agree with jlii, but I do on this one. The editorial policy is beyond subjective and I think that it would help for us as a community to have some better standards and accountability. For example, what exactly does "are intended to disrupt the site" mean? Are the editors clairvoyant? Do they know the intent of all authors? And just what is a disruption?

Furthermore, "are obviously incorrect or misleading, including attempts to spread dis-information" is laughable. A lof of what is posted here is obviously misleading by my standards. What of all the 9-11 conspiracies? Why are they allowed to stay?

I think that some clearer standards are necessary here. I love indymedia, but it has some major flaws. We are so quick to censure the trolls that anything that runs counter to the "indymedia line" (as much as such a thing exists) is censored. This isn't right. Open publishing should mean something.

How free is Indymedia if it will not even allow critisicm of itself?

yay, let's argue about CENSORSHIP 09.Jan.2004 15:42

not COINTELPRO, but might as well be

It is almost too easy to get people to argue over this shit right before protests. Hasn't everyone noticed this by now? The only time people talk about censorship is right before major events, and then afterward we hear nothing about it. I'm sure that's just a coincidence though.

And frankly, I have no idea what the "indymedia line" is since, like most people I disagree with the majority of stuff posted here. But that will happen when such a wide range of opinions are present. I think the only person that could talk of an "indymedia line" is someone with no understanding or knowledge of the information posted here.

What really is bothering people is that portland indymedia is effective, as it wasn't 9 months ago. Anyone who was around then (and has since returned) could tell you that. Most readers had given up because it was too difficult to wade through all the posts aimed at disrupting the site.

The only measure should be effectiveness and no unmoderated board can be effective. If other people want to set up an unmoderated message board to discuss posts on portland indymedia there are dozens of free sites to do that. More power to you, but I (and I suspect many others) won't waste my time there.

OK Let's not talk about this until after Cheny 09.Jan.2004 15:57


Let's not talk about this until after Cheney. Bigger fish to fry. My I risk qestioning authority by pointing out the last time Dick was in town the Org meeting at PSU had the same site at the Airport as where he was going to be. So stay OPEN about that. He will be by the beef at EL Gaucho's the Benson, maybe. One gut at the meting back then said it best, "I,m from the 60's tell me where the Demo is and I'l be there." me 2.

After some Dick 09.Jan.2004 16:13


AT 16:00 I posted a sugestion we stop on this util after CHeney next week, must have done it wrong it didn't post.

An example of subjectivity 09.Jan.2004 16:36


Earlier this snow-bound week, I started a thread about a sorta pro-capitalism post by Gabrielle Rielly that dissapeared.

I was concerned about why it was deleted, and the official explination was that she spams indymedia's with the same post everytime someone posts a critique of capitalism. So her posts are deleted as disruptive.

I understand that some editorial deleting is neccessary, but it didn't seem to me that her post was trite, meanspirited or inflammatory. Frankly it was fairly thoughtful compared to most posts on this site and it inspired some real debate and many interesting responses (including one I wrote).

On the other hand, whenever someone posts a pro-Dean piece, the same people slap up the exact same 200 word diatribe that they probably just cut and paste from a word document. Regardless of what the poster is saying about Dean, the negative responses fail tor respond to spacifics and parrot the exact same knee-jerk hyperbole--clearly just designed to piss off people about Dean. (nearly the same is true about posts on Wesley Clark and Dennis Kucinich--although of course the knee-jerk hyperbole is different.)

In other words, when disruptive spamming is directed at certian political positions, it is left up, but other times it is deleted by editors.

I'm not going to guess what the "indymedia line" is, but I would guess few people who read this site would be surprised that spam criticism of Democrats is deleted while spam defenses of Capitalism are dissapeared.

everything is subjective 09.Jan.2004 17:00


But regardless, no post is deleted. For the 10th time today, posts removed from the newswire can be found in the compost bin. Can't make it any more plain than that.

responses to Jason and John 09.Jan.2004 17:05

an indymedia volunteer

well OF COURSE "when disruptive spamming is directed at certian political positions, it is left up, but other times it is deleted". do you expect anything else? this site is not a free speech zone and it has no pretenses about holding up some mythological "objectivity".

re, posts criticizing Democrats are left up, and some criticizing anti-Capitalism are left up: anyone with the faintest bit of clarity can see that capitalism and its agents are destructive to the world, and that Dean and the mainline democrats are two of those agents. attacks on Dean are tantamount to attacks on the WTO, oil wars, the dissolution of civil liberties, etc., because those are all things that Dean supports.

the path to sustainability, cooperation and justice will not be reached through Dean or capitalism. that should be obvious by now. hence the pattern that you've noticed.

re. John's comment about the editorial policy being "beyond subjective" -- well, truth transcends the false "subjective/objective" duality and it is with that concept in mind that posts are hidden or not. some of the editors might be clairvoyant. i don't know. but i know that i myself have seen enough and read enough to recognize the smell of bullshit, and it doesn't take a clairvoyant to do that. i don't know what *your* "line" is, but it sounds a lot like classic Leftist Intellectualism, for which i, personally, have great disdain. Leftist intellectualism, like all intellectualism, is a dead end. you can play freaking word games all f'n day long with that shit, and it gets nobody nowhere.

as for the "indymedia line", that, like "objectivity", is another myth if you want a list of political stances or affiliations or whatever. everyone involved comes from their own place, doesn't agree with everyone else on stuff, but has in common a committment to keep the site functional, which means tons of work de-trolling the thing. i don't do much of it myself anymore, but admire and respect and trust the work that the others do. they rock!

But is it necessary? 09.Jan.2004 17:52


"do you expect anything else? this site is not a free speech zone and it has no pretenses about holding up some mythological 'objectivity'".

It's true that this is made clear. I'm sure most posters and readers understand this. But I'm not sure I've ever seen a good reason for why the site is not a free speech zone. I'm also not sure that avowed objectivity should be considered pretentious. (Though I see where you're coming from).

What does having a select group with editorial discretion accomplish that user moderation could not?

I understand this is not a blog. But some of the composting that's done sometimes strikes me as heavy-handed.

Thanks to all the volunteers for your work though.

it is necessary 09.Jan.2004 18:37

long time contributer

There are no popular unmoderated discussion boards on the web. That should be an indication of why moderation is necessary. Two terms that should be dropped from this debate are "free speech" and "censorship". They have nothing to do with whether messages on an internet site are moderated or unmoderated. I would suggest reviewing the composts bin for march-may of 2003 for those who were not around, or do not remember how unusable the site was at that time. I believe user moderation is problematic when you have people dedicated to fighting an "information war" with indymedia. If people were not so afraid of the information and discussions here this would not be a problem and a user moderation solution might work. As things are at this time, this is not feasible. As for objectivity, I don't see it as pretentious as much as it's a lie. One cannot disassociate from one's experiences and those experiences are a bias. There is nothing wrong with this, indeed by rejecting this only serves to distance oneself from truth. You cannot reach the truth on a foundation of lies, and the first lie that needs to be dropped is that one is reporting events objectively. For example, while some may see the composting as heavy-handed I do not. Because of the existence of the compost bin it allows the individuals making the decisions a little more leeway in removing content simply because that content is not being deleted. If content was being removed or deleted that would be a different scenario under which to evaluate the process. This way, those that want to comment on stories can still do so. There is a mechanism for feedback for any that care to use it.

And never forget, those that are intent on diminishing the effectiveness of indymedia love nothing more than to see people fighting over "censorship". Or as was recently brought back to people's attention (thankfully, because I don't think most people understand the dedication and mindset of those opposed to indymedia): "they are so committed to 'Free Speech' or some such pinko bullshit that they won't be able to yank our stuff even when they know they're being hosed! We can use their network to pump our message out to their audience of punk thought-criminals."

I am committed to freedom of speech as laid out in the first amendment of the constitution of the united states. I also believe that everyone should have an outlet for her voice. But every voice cannot be heard on all mediums, for there are far too many. Some places have to choose to focus on those voices being heard the least and must resist those who would drown out those voices.

Rights and wrongs 09.Jan.2004 20:31


The First Amendment confers the right to speak.

It does not confer the privilege to compel others to listen.

It does not confer the privilege to compel others to publish.

If you believe you have to right to compel others to your bidding,
you are our enemy.

The problem of "spam posts" is a simple one 09.Jan.2004 22:56


The problem here is very, very, very, VERY simple.

The "publish" function and the "news stories" on the right side of the main page are serving two different and sometime contradictory purposes.

Sometimes it's a news service.

Sometimes it's a message board.

THAT'S your whole problem.

Today some guy asked about getting to the coast without a car.

That's a message board post.

Not a news story.

Posting an article on this...

"I.M.F. Report Says U.S. Deficits Threaten World Economy"

That's a news story.

Solve the problem by separating the two functions. Make a message board where people can post about wearing bags on their feet to get traction during an ice storm. Or catching a bus to the coast. Or recommend movies or books. Or chat about... whatever.

And then have a completely different place where anyone can post NEWS STORIES exclusively. On the right, on the front page.

In short, there should be three main things we see on the front page:

1) News stories as selected by the PDX Editorial Staff (center column)
2) News stories posted completely uncensored by Joe (or Jane) Anybody (right column)
3) Message board topics (left column?)

These should be in three very distinct areas.

Right now you have all three of those sort of showing up on the right and some of that in the main column area. Make a clear distinction between the three.

That way you solve all problems.

1) The news given the seal of approval by the PDX Editorial Staff will weed out some of the chaff.
2) The news which is posted by anybody makes sure we have access to EVERY perspective, uncensored, and makes sure no one is excluded.
3) And then general inquiries, conversation, and discussions about site policy or everything else can show up in the message board section.

re: spudnuts 09.Jan.2004 23:18


Hey spudnuts therre is a very neat aspect of PDX IMC, which also adresses what you are asking for a bit.

if you scroll over the newswire posts, a little pop up comes and says to you what the stories focus is, it hink the four are coverage commentary annoucements and reposts. Reposts are the worst, being reposted from corp media sites. COmmentary is more of the message board posts, annoucements and coverage are self explanatory.

I think PDX IMC is doing well to address the issues that are brought up, rock on!

It is necessary, James 09.Jan.2004 23:19


The IndyMedia sites are meant as an antidote to the corporate media, so IMCs don't push the "unbiased" BS that corporate media does about journalism. If this was a "free speech zone" then the paid agents and freepers would overwhelm this site, making it essentially yet another corporate mouthpiece. This is a site established with a definite anti-capitalist bias, and capitalists have a way of buying everything they want, including their competitors. Without a system of biased censorship, the focus of this site would be lost. there would then be no point.

There is no "select group with editorial discretion" - show up to the Saturday meetings and you too will be given the same power. This is DIY here. I would do it myself but I personally think yet another white male is unnecessary in an editorial role here.

If you think about "objectivity" - how is it possible? Humans have emotions and opinions. When writing a piece, you would choose to include some facts and leave others out. That is bias. Then, of the facts you included, you would list them in a certain order, which is yet more bias. Finally, in reading the piece, it would become clear which course of action would be more viable (given what is argued and how in the article) - and that gestalt of teh whole piece is yet more bias. After reading it, you would find that the facts or sources left out or included shine more light on the bias of the article. I would be interested in knowing HOW any "objective" or "unbiased" piece could be written, in your opinion. I don't see it as possible.

FAUX and CNN and NY Times and the Whoregonian and ABC, CBS, NBC (even PBS and NPR) and all the many others have a trillions of dollars worth of well-publicized capitalist rhetoric. IndyMedia was created to respond to the capitalist propaganda in kind, and letting the duped-by-corporate-media post their justifications for an inhuman system would be defeating the stated purpose. They have their media already. Shouldn't we should have ours?

Censorship is censorship is censorship 10.Jan.2004 11:55


Personally, I don't have a problem with Freepers or Dittoheads posting with impunity. Let them bring their best. I can see how someone with the intention of just fucking up the site can post an endless stream of crap, but let's face it... if someone is determined to overwhelm this site then one of two things will happen:

1) They'll succeed (you can't effectively police an open publishing model forever).
2) The mods will be working 24/7 deleting and editing comments and posts which pretty much forces them into wasting their energy chasing trolls. It also makes the site seem increasingly restrictive.

If you allow Freepers and Dittoheads to post freely in the comments section and in the news area, will many conversations bloom into full-on flame wars? Well, fuck yeah. That's called open discourse in all of its hideous glory. Yes, I know that many message boards can become paralyzed with endless cycles of tit-for-tat but at the same time, that's a reflection on the polarity of opinion in our nation.

Keep the main news area off limits to anyone but the PDX staff (that preserves the mission and tone of Indymedia), but if this isn't an open publishing page then change the title to "semi-open publishing page" for clarity.

I eat Freepers like tic-tacs 10.Jan.2004 11:56


It's kinda lonely without them.

I'm paranoid as fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 10.Jan.2004 15:12

Migratory Bird

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck about censorship. But as far as I can tell not much ends up in the compost (I think there should be a comment compost) and I have never been censored. I have been coming to this site posting for a over a year and a half on a regular basis. When nothing I have said or done has ended up being composted then let me ask you this, why are you whining for corporate drones to take over the site?

PS editors you never responded to my last round o paranoia? So how can you tell..... Because I don't think you can tell if something was composted and then taken back out of compost can you?

Also I want to give a resounding round of thanks, backslapping, general hoots and calls, sweet mayhem, and over pouring of love for all the dedicated VOLUNTEERS who help to run this site. I know we give you a lot of work to do, and you do it well. I' d help you out but I'm trying to give you more work to do....

Sometimes "messages" or notices are news...for example, I 10.Jan.2004 16:05


didn't know that Cost Plus uses wood that babboons (I think) need for their habitat until I saw a message inviting people to come to a protest.

I must repeat what some others are saying too: since there is a compost bin and nothing is deleted--why are people so worried about "censorship?" If you want to see all the crud that the editors felt was wasting space--go have at it, it's all still there.

Look, if the aim is to have a functional, useable board, clearly there needs to be moderation. Most serious activists that I know of would not waste their time wading through the flaming, baiting crud that would likely become of an unmoderated Indy. Many people don't come here for a "free for all"--we come here for a site that is specifically to inform and educate, and to discuss lefty issues.

Censorship is a neoliberal-herring 10.Jan.2004 16:42


So far as I can tell, Spudnut, the folks who give their hours, their skills, and their dollars to IMC do not want a site paralyzed. If you want such a site, you should come up with a better excuse than "gimme" to steal the goods and labours of the collective. Alternately, and more realistically, you might invest some of your own time etc in a paralyzed site.

Censorship does not happen here. The editors cannot prevent you from publishing as many of your thoughts as you can scrape up. What they can do is prevent you from stealing their bandwidth.

That is not censorship. That is theft-prevention.

Reflection 10.Jan.2004 16:46


Paralysis is not a consequence of polarised opinion.

Paralysis is a consequence of shitty (deliberately crippled in this country) discussion skills.

And sometimes sabotage.