Orientation to Indybay and Santa Cruz Indymedia

As a long-time supporter (and sometime critic) of Santa Cruz Indymedia, I'm wondering if this is the appropriate place to post critical comments of some aspects of indymedia.

I ask this question because I was sent an (admittedly harsh, but specific) criticism of indymedia posted at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/01/24/17977661.php? show_comments=1#18445480 which has apparently been censored (deleted, removed, what you will).

Is there an appropriate place to express concerns about indymedia policies publicly?

Is this the appropriate place?

I am frankly concerned to see as broad a dialogue as possible though I understand that indymedia has a specific mission.

Please clarify for me if possible.

Consider who owns your local newspapers:

Santa Cruz Sentinel (owned by Dean Singleton's Colorado-based Media News Group)
http://cjrarchives.org/tools/owners/medianews.asp

Metro Santa Cruz (owned by San Jose-based Metro Newspapers)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Newspapers

The Good Times (owned by Hollister-based Mainstreet Media Group LLC.)
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/product-compint-0000719907-page.html

I wasn't able to find the actual people who own and control the Metro and Good Times. Gotta go look up their corporate records somewhere.

Similarly, it's pretty hard to figure out who control the local news radio and TV - Hearst is one, University of California Regents control 88.1, some other unknowns control 88.9 etc. I'm working on a little side project to ID all the owners and controllers of media outlets in the Monterey Bay region - please email any info at the above address.

However, what's really hard is to figure out who controls indybay! Who pays for the web site hosting? Someone has to, right? Who decides what stories make the cover?

Look: if you want to be credible, you have to take of the masks and clearly list the names of the editors, the funding sources and so on. What are people afraid of? Even though the corporate media is in bed with wealthy private interests, at least the editors use their real names, even if they try and hide the real owners behind multiple layers of holding companies.

Other reliable online media sites like Alternet or Democracy Now are completely up front about who works there and where their funding comes from as well.

So, what's the deal here? Step out of the shadows and into the light - why not?

Hi, Indybay has open meetings, and they would be one way to find out who the editors are. Another would be hanging out on irc (see the chat link on the left side of this screen).

Please remember that noone works at Indybay. It is an all-volunteer collective whose membership waxes and wanes just like in any group. Some people are active only at certain times of year or only when life circumstances permit...

"However, what's really hard is to figure out who controls indybay! Who pays for the web site hosting? Someone has to, right? Who decides what stories make the cover? "

The editorial collective.

"Look: if you want to be credible, you have to take of the masks and clearly list the names of the editors, the funding sources and so on. What are people afraid of? Even though the corporate media is in bed with wealthy private interests, at least the editors use their real names, even if they try and hide the real owners behind multiple layers of holding companies. "

The funding sources are the people. We had a big fundraising drive over the winter, and a lot of people gave money. Click on "About" up above to learn more about Indymedia.

not everyone can be eponymous with their activism. there is a lot of repression, not just from the state, against activists. not everyone has "proper documentation" to be living in ___________. there are lots of reasons.

Ike Solem's comments are worth considering. As are eponymous's. It smacks a bit of paranoia to be unduly secretive, though in some cases it's appropriate.

As activists with different focuses, the more we can improve communication and trust--even where there is significant disagreement--the more powerful we are and the more people we can influence.

I suggested several years ago that indybay workers, when they remove a post (there are no hidden posts any more, right?), send an e-mail to the poster citing the specific indybay policy being violated. I still think this is a good idea.

I think it would also be good for indybay to be candid that there are some opinions (and why not specific which ones?) that are simply taboo on indybay. They are removed immediately. And there is no appeal.

In response to this, some of us set up santacruzcensorship.org for a period of time.

There are some who are unwelcome at indymedia meetings because their opinions are regarded "beyond the pale". Why be coy or disingenuous about this? Rather clarify exactly what the specific implications of indybay's mission is. It is not a libertarian speech forum (which some of us regret, and some applaud). But being as clear as possible about it is preferible to rosy smiley words that are belied by the actual reality.

I point this out not to criticize (though I have criticized in the past), but to encourage honesty and clarity.

Indymedia is a vital and important resource in this community.

But so are those who write for it. Both need to be shown as much respect as possible.

Again, I appreciate the fact that this discussion can take place. And I think indybay's reputation benefits from the discussion. The less those of us who post comments feel we have to tiptoe around for fear of having our posts removed, the better.