www.indymedia.ie and censorship

segaBOY

Bit stupid the fact that I am giving them some publicity even if negative but here it goes

I posted a few comments argueing against their political thinking and they where censored-now, they use the word "hypocrisy" a lot well censorship is one of the main things they rally against-what a bunch of hypocrites they are. This activity leaves only comments biased to their point of view below stories.

Anyone else have any similar experience? No wonder noone takes them seriously...

Ostrom

I posted a comment last week, on the legalise marijuana march 2 weeks ago, everyone was commenting something positive, (used the term 'power play' to refer to the Gardai.......) and I was trying to ask if they thought it hypocritical for a march of middle class twentysomethings through one of the poorest cities in Europe, to frame their requests in terms of 'civil rights' (easier supplies). My comment was deleted about a half hour later. There was no bad language or name calling (nothing to violate their terms of use).

mike65

Its a frequent complaint - one argued about here in the past by the guy who runs it

Not that this forum is the place for discussion - News/Media might be more appropriate.

Mike.

Ostrom

Can you move the thread? I would like to hear from him, I like to keep up with protest events, I dont often agree with many of them and like a good debate

mike65

I cant but I'll ask someone who can

Mike.

Sherifu

Vote with your mouse.

Ostrom

Sherifu wrote: »

Vote with your mouse.

Eh?

Moriarty

Moved to News/Media.

segaBOY

Moriarty wrote: »

Moved to News/Media.

Thanks for that wasn't sure where to post this.

I emailed them yesterday asking why they don't practice what they preach...needless to say they didn't reply yet found the time to delete my comments in the meantime.

Decided to leave a few more comments asking why they deleted a perfectly acceptable post-if anyone else feels strong enough I'd urge them to do the same

After all they claim they are subject to censorship by the general media and have claimed google censored them in the past by filtering search results why do they censor me on their website where their stories are apparently "open to debate"?

"End the hypocrisy now" to use one of their one liners...

DeVore

Despite being a life long libertarian, I dont get on well with the left (and far "left") in this country because I actually find it hard to distinguish them from the right and the far right at times. I dont mean this as a poke at anyone, but honestly I find the stridency and aggression of the "anti" brigade to be scarier then some of the fascists in this country, and God knows we've been on the receiving end from them too...

The problem is not simple though. I've no doubt that I would have considered your post fair comment and debate, the problem arises in where to draw the line. "Censorship" is generally cried when the person agrees with the comment or disagrees with its target and it is removed. If they DONT agree with it, its "good moderation".

I have accused indymedia of not holding themselves to their own standards before but in the end of the day they draw their line and they have to live with it.
The Politics forum on Boards is a contentious place of argument and lots of things get cut and lots of people are "outraged" as a result. No matter what you do people will be outraged. If you cut a post, the author is annoyed. If you dont cut a post, others who read it get annoyed. What I try and look for is a general spread of annoyance which indicates that there isnt bias in the system. Its not easy though! For example, StormF'er think of us as "pinko liberals" while Indymedia seem to consider us a bunch of fascists. That means we're probably about in the middle. Which is fine by me.

I think it lessens Indymedia as a resource because it is too easily sidelined as a "website full of lefty cranks" and also reflects badly on them as it does seem hypocritical when they only leave up comments that approve of the "party line".

DeV.

Sherifu

efla wrote: »

Eh?

I mean use different sites.

segaBOY

DeVore wrote: »

Despite being a life long libertarian, I dont get on well with the left (and far "left") in this country because I actually find it hard to distinguish them from the right and the far right at times. I dont mean this as a poke at anyone, but honestly I find the stridency and aggression of the "anti" brigade to be scarier then some of the fascists in this country, and God knows we've been on the receiving end from them too...

The problem is not simple though. I've no doubt that I would have considered your post fair comment and debate, the problem arises in where to draw the line. "Censorship" is generally cried when the person agrees with the comment or disagrees with its target and it is removed. If they DONT agree with it, its "good moderation".

I have accused indymedia of not holding themselves to their own standards before but in the end of the day they draw their line and they have to live with it.
The Politics forum on Boards is a contentious place of argument and lots of things get cut and lots of people are "outraged" as a result. No matter what you do people will be outraged. If you cut a post, the author is annoyed. If you dont cut a post, others who read it get annoyed. What I try and look for is a general spread of annoyance which indicates that there isnt bias in the system. Its not easy though! For example, StormF'er think of us as "pinko liberals" while Indymedia seem to consider us a bunch of fascists. That means we're probably about in the middle. Which is fine by me.

I think it lessens Indymedia as a resource because it is too easily sidelined as a "website full of lefty cranks" and also reflects badly on them as it does seem hypocritical when they only leave up comments that approve of the "party line".

DeV.

I agree with what your saying, indymedia is just as bad as the far right in my opinion, in one of my posts I said "Please give me a reason why cannabis should be legalised-look at the slums of junkies in Amsterdam due to liberalisation of drug laws" in response to their legalise cannabis campaign.

The response I got was deleting my post-now if that's not censorship I don't know what is tbh

Ostrom

DeVore wrote: »

Despite being a life long libertarian, I dont get on well with the left (and far "left") in this country because I actually find it hard to distinguish them from the right and the far right at times. I dont mean this as a poke at anyone, but honestly I find the stridency and aggression of the "anti" brigade to be scarier then some of the fascists in this country, and God knows we've been on the receiving end from them too...

The problem is not simple though. I've no doubt that I would have considered your post fair comment and debate, the problem arises in where to draw the line. "Censorship" is generally cried when the person agrees with the comment or disagrees with its target and it is removed. If they DONT agree with it, its "good moderation".

I have accused indymedia of not holding themselves to their own standards before but in the end of the day they draw their line and they have to live with it.
The Politics forum on Boards is a contentious place of argument and lots of things get cut and lots of people are "outraged" as a result. No matter what you do people will be outraged. If you cut a post, the author is annoyed. If you dont cut a post, others who read it get annoyed. What I try and look for is a general spread of annoyance which indicates that there isnt bias in the system. Its not easy though! For example, StormF'er think of us as "pinko liberals" while Indymedia seem to consider us a bunch of fascists. That means we're probably about in the middle. Which is fine by me.

I think it lessens Indymedia as a resource because it is too easily sidelined as a "website full of lefty cranks" and also reflects badly on them as it does seem hypocritical when they only leave up comments that approve of the "party line".

DeV.

Spot on, and I'm getting a little bit tired of their ('the left' - general I know) entitlement attitude toward protesting issues such as Tara and marijuana just because its seen as some sort of relative repression. That satirical piece was justly deleted but the implication remains, and I cant help but feel the stereotype may not be too far off.

I have had little time for save tara over the past year, nor any for the march in Dublin, but I also value indymedia for bringing early coverage of events and processes such as these. You're right its absolutely an issue of party for them. I would, as an earlier poster suggested 'vote with my mouse' but I would much rather a site of coverage and debate, which indymedia was until quite recently from what I can see. Then again, I havent been using it more than a year, anyone else know if this is a recent trend?

Why take to the streets for forum for your views, then put down rational (which I thought it was) dissent from within? If the motivation is exclusion of your issue from public debate, why reproduce it in your own website? Big generalisations here I know, but I'm just trying to get at the trend as you say.

mike65

Indymedia editor on boards thread about indymedia

Mike.

Dublin's Finest

I don't think anything to do with Indymedia should be debated on this forum to be honest. It's reactionary, hysterical and obsessed with conspiracies. It's a disservice to politics of the left. It should stay on the politics forums.

The kind of discourse it hosts lead to people like Pronsias de Rossa getting punched in the face outside Liberty Hall.

Just my tuppence...

Ostrom

mike65 wrote: »

Indymedia editor on boards thread about indymedia

Mike.

Thanks for that, interesting thread

lostexpectation

sounds like somebody giving out for having a 'get a job' type comment removed, useless trolling like that deserves to be removed.

segaBOY

lostexpectation wrote: »

sounds like somebody giving out for having a 'get a job' type comment removed, useless trolling like that deserves to be removed.

Asked why cannabbis should be legalised, gave the point about slums with junkies in amsterdam forming due to drug liberalisation-was deleted

Didn't tell urman to get a job

Ostrom

Mine was questioning the basis of the march, they talked civil liberties which I found ironic considering the context of the march, and the video was none too helpful. I wasnt sure what exactly they wanted, so I posted as such.

Also I was really sick of hearing the old medical argument (again, ignoring that any medically sanctioned case of medicinal marijuana use involved controlled substance production, and strict medical supervision at all stages), so I made that known.

chekov

Dublin's Finest wrote: »

I don't think anything to do with Indymedia should be debated on this forum to be honest. It's reactionary, hysterical and obsessed with conspiracies. It's a disservice to politics of the left. It should stay on the politics forums.

The kind of discourse it hosts lead to people like Pronsias de Rossa getting punched in the face outside Liberty Hall.

Just my tuppence...

Well at least we don't go around publishing absurd and unsubstantiated lies that accuse other people of inciting violence against people without the merest hint of evidence.

Mote, beam, eye, air-filled cranium, etc, etc..

chekov

segaBOY wrote: »

Bit stupid the fact that I am giving them some publicity even if negative but here it goes

I posted a few comments argueing against their political thinking and they where censored-now, they use the word "hypocrisy" a lot well censorship is one of the main things they rally against-what a bunch of hypocrites they are. This activity leaves only comments biased to their point of view below stories.

Anyone else have any similar experience? No wonder noone takes them seriously...

You posted one abusive, thought free, unsubstantiated opinion which remains on that thread. Then you posted two more comments in the space of 3 minutes which were shorter and even less thoughtful repetitions of the same opinion. These were removed as were your hysterical, absurd squeals about censorship which you chose to spam the site with.

segaBOY

chekov wrote: »

You posted one abusive, thought free, unsubstantiated opinion which remains on that thread. Then you posted two more comments in the space of 3 minutes which were shorter and even less thoughtful repetitions of the same opinion. These were removed as were your hysterical, absurd squeals about censorship which you chose to spam the site with.

Why was my question about asking your opinion on why cannabbis should be legalised deleted? I didn't post any abusive comments, one was that I wouldn't be seen at the march because I wouldn't want a potential employer seeing me at it!! Yet you still deleted the comment! Is that abusive? Is that spam? Thought free? NO it is valid input that you censored because it doesn't support your view. I am not alone here, plenty others have been censored!

End the hypocricy now!

Dublin's Finest

chekov wrote: »

Well at least we don't go around publishing absurd and unsubstantiated lies that accuse other people of inciting violence against people without the merest hint of evidence.

Mote, beam, eye, air-filled cranium, etc, etc..

I think much of Indymedia's material is unsubstantiated, in fact. I never said there was a direct responsibility for that assault. What I meant is that IM has a constant us against them/state-as-oppressor narrative that's tiring.

Anti, anti, anti ... what about being for something?

segaBOY

Dublin's Finest wrote: »

Anti, anti, anti ... what about being for something?

Ah now lets not be too hasty that would give them some credibility!

Besides they're for censorship....

chekov

Dublin's Finest wrote: »

I think much of Indymedia's material is unsubstantiated, in fact. I never said there was a direct responsibility for that assault. What I meant is that IM has a constant us against them/state-as-oppressor narrative that's tiring.

You specifically claimed that indymedia is "obsessed with conspiracy theories". Not only is it not substantiated, it's a straight up and down lie. Indymedia does not permit the posting of conspiracy theories.

You also claimed that the type of discourse that it hosts "lead to people like Pronsias de Rossa getting punched in the face". The funny thing about that is that it's a lie-squared. Not only did Prionsias de Rossa not get punched in the face, he never claimed that he did. Furthermore, the group involved in the incident "WACI" are banned from posting stories to indymedia due to the fact that they are conspiranoids.

So, in sum, forgive me if I don't take your critiques of evidence bases too seriously.

Dublin's Finest wrote: »

Anti, anti, anti ... what about being for something?

You have engaged in careful research before forming this opinion, yeah?

segaBOY

segaBOY wrote: »

Why was my question about asking your opinion on why cannabbis should be legalised deleted? I didn't post any abusive comments, one was that I wouldn't be seen at the march because I wouldn't want a potential employer seeing me at it!! Yet you still deleted the comment! Is that abusive? Is that spam? Thought free? NO it is valid input that you censored because it doesn't support your view. I am not alone here, plenty others have been censored!

End the hypocricy now!

Forgot to answer these questions Chekov, if you wouldn't mind doing so, thanks.

Dublin's Finest

chekov wrote: »

You specifically claimed that indymedia is "obsessed with conspiracy theories". Not only is it not substantiated, it's a straight up and down lie. Indymedia does not permit the posting of conspiracy theories.

You also claimed that the type of discourse that it hosts "lead to people like Pronsias de Rossa getting punched in the face". The funny thing about that is that it's a lie-squared. Not only did Prionsias de Rossa not get punched in the face, he never claimed that he did. Furthermore, the group involved in the incident "WACI" are banned from posting stories to indymedia due to the fact that they are conspiranoids.

So, in sum, forgive me if I don't take your critiques of evidence bases too seriously.



You have engaged in careful research before forming this opinion, yeah?

Still haven't told us what you're for...

Also, you've just admitted that the "group involved in the incident" are banned from posting on Indymedia. So, they have posted on the site before.

segaBOY

Dublin's Finest wrote: »

Still haven't told us what you're for...

Also, you've just admitted that the "group involved in the incident" are banned from posting on Indymedia. So, they have posted on the site before.

Don't think you'll be getting much reasonable answers off chekov-just contradictions and made up accusations.

chekov

Dublin's Finest wrote: »

Still haven't told us what you're for...

Also, you've just admitted that the "group involved in the incident" are banned from posting on Indymedia. So, they have posted on the site before.

Your inference is incorrect. The material that they distribute is banned as they are conspiranoids. I am unaware of them actually ever posting a story and if they did, which they could do like anybody as it's an open publishing site, it would be removed quickly. Unlike here, where it seems that any old crap is okay as long as it resonates with a moderator's prejudices. I mean this thread is ridiculous, some kid moaning because his repeatedly posted information-free comments got hidden on some website and some other idiot throwing out all sorts of made-up-off the-top-of-his-head smears. What a joke.

Anyway, one of the reason that indymedia has made its moderation policy more strict over the years is that, if you don't, you get trolls such as yourself and your juvenile co-critic spending their time throwing out any old ****e continually and never even registering the merest hint of shame when they are revealed to be totally lying. It is not a bulletin board. Anybody can post anything, but if it doesn't have some news or information content, it will be removed.

Gobán Saor

chekov wrote: »

It is not a bulletin board. Anybody can post anything, but if it doesn't have some news or information content, it will be removed.

Well, not quite;) While indymedia does have posting guidelines, there is no consistency in their application. If you look through the editorial decision list, you will see that comments that are supportive of the USA, Israel, the Gardai are regularly deleted for "trolling" or "BB chat" or "not news or info" or "unsubstantiated allegation." Particularly Israel. Similar comments that support the party line go undeleted.

Of course, indymedia is your site and you are perfectly entitled to run it in any way you choose. However, if indymedia professes itself to be generally in favour of freedom of speech AND publishes a set of editorial guidelines and then engages in arbitrary and selective application of those guidelines, it is reasonable to expect allegations of hypocracy and suppression of opposing points of view.

chekov

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Well, not quite;) While indymedia does have posting guidelines, there is no consistency in their application. If you look through the editorial decision list, you will see that comments that are supportive of the USA, Israel, the Gardai are regularly deleted for "trolling" or "BB chat" or "not news or info" or "unsubstantiated allegation." Particularly Israel. Similar comments that support the party line go undeleted.

Of course, indymedia is your site and you are perfectly entitled to run it in any way you choose. However, if indymedia professes itself to be generally in favour of freedom of speech AND publishes a set of editorial guidelines and then engages in arbitrary and selective application of those guidelines, it is reasonable to expect allegations of hypocracy and suppression of opposing points of view.

In fairness, I accept that there is every possibliity that there is selective editing. I think it's impossible to remove one's viewpoint from any type of editorial decision and it is entirely possible that posts that editors disagree with are more hastily dealt with than other posts. I would, however, like some actual pointers to back it up since, while I accept that it is eminently possible, I can't actually address it unless I have something concrete to go on.

On the other hand, however, I can assure you that not one single story that contained any original information has ever been removed on the grounds of political divergence. If there is a bias it is leaving too many information-free leftie postings, it is not censoring well written, properly researched right wing articles. We've only ever got a few of those ever and they normally end up on the front page.

segaBOY

You going to answer my question now chekov or are you all out of answers and fabricated accusations for me??

Gobán Saor

Fair enough. I will do a trawl of the archives and come up with some concrete examples but I can assure you there is ample evidence of very selective censorship. (And in fairness, you don't hide it - all editorial decisions are published on the mailing list - admirable openness in that regard.) Haven't time to do it now though as Mrs Gobán and I are heading away for the long bank holiday.....:)

Can you clarify one thing though? On the site it says (my emphasis)

Indymedia Ireland is built on the foundation of an open and democratic newswire. We want to see and hear real stories, news, and opinions from users of the site around the country. Anybody can post a story, or a comment on a story to Indymedia. While we struggle to maintain the newswire as a completely open forum we do monitor it and remove posts.

This would suggest that comments and opinions (rather than hard news information) are welcome.

But yet comments (especially "right wing" ones) are regularly deleted with an excuse of "not news or info." Which is it, do you welcome comments or not? Or only those which take a left wing/anarchist/anti US or Israel point of view?

Gobán Saor

Not exactly the sort of thing I was getting at but here's an example of a posting that was deleted even though it was doing nothing more than poking a bit of fun at some of the more ridiculous ravings on indymedia. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055289973 I'd call it fair comment:D

Gobán Saor

A better example:

From the story http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=87722 "The Lisbon treaty is no Friend of Palestine", this seems to be quite acceptable:

...Gaza is the concentration camp, the West Bank the open prison where: "The obliteration of an entire people by slow systematic methods of suffocation, outright murder and the stifling of everyday life" (Edward Said) is happening.

And of course it should be quite acceptable even though "the obliteration of an entire people" is a little OTT IMHO and would be opinion rather than fact.

However, the indymedia censors deleted the following comment:

Date : Tuesday, May 27 2008, 4:55pm
Action : hide comment 229003 performed by Ronan
Reason : Not factual: "The Palestinians want to destroy the state of Israel, expel and/or kill all Jewish Israelis"

--- Comment Content ---
The Palestinians want to destroy the state of Israel, expel and/or kill all Jewish Israelis and conquer Israeli territory.
The Palestinians, either secular Arab nationalists or Islamic fundementalists have never compromised since 1948 and have been involved in constant attacks on Israeli security forces and civilians ever since.

---

End of comment 229003 Content

---

So you see. It's ok to allege that Israel is engaged in the obliteration of the entire Palestinian people using outright murder as a tool but you can't say that the Palestinians want to destroy the State of Israel or expel/kill all Jewish Israelis. Which as I understand it is pretty much the declared policy of Hezbollah. And possibly Hamas. (But, in fairness, not all Palestinians share those views.)

Looks like pretty heavy-handed and blatantly one-sided censorship to me.

chekov

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Fair enough. I will do a trawl of the archives and come up with some concrete examples but I can assure you there is ample evidence of very selective censorship. (And in fairness, you don't hide it - all editorial decisions are published on the mailing list - admirable openness in that regard.) Haven't time to do it now though as Mrs Gobán and I are heading away for the long bank holiday.....:)

Can you clarify one thing though? On the site it says (my emphasis)

This would suggest that comments and opinions (rather than hard news information) are welcome.

But yet comments (especially "right wing" ones) are regularly deleted with an excuse of "not news or info." Which is it, do you welcome comments or not? Or only those which take a left wing/anarchist/anti US or Israel point of view?

From the publishing guide:http://www.indymedia.ie/publishing_guide

"Opinion pieces must be original. We ask authors to put a reasonable amount of effort into making their arguments clearly and backing them up with evidence. We are particularly keen on articles which show evidence of original research or a fresh angle of analysis about an issue. If you just want to have a rant off the top of your head, a blog is a better bet."

chekov

Gobán Saor wrote: »

A better example:

From the story http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=87722 "The Lisbon treaty is no Friend of Palestine", this seems to be quite acceptable: And of course it should be quite acceptable even though "the obliteration of an entire people" is a little OTT IMHO and would be opinion rather than fact.

However, the indymedia censors deleted the following comment:

So you see. It's ok to allege that Israel is engaged in the obliteration of the entire Palestinian people using outright murder as a tool but you can't say that the Palestinians want to destroy the State of Israel or expel/kill all Jewish Israelis. Which as I understand it is pretty much the declared policy of Hezbollah. And possibly Hamas. (But, in fairness, not all Palestinians share those views.)

Looks like pretty heavy-handed and blatantly one-sided censorship to me.

A number of points.

Firstly, the initial comment is in the passive voice, it does not state that "all Israelis" are doing this nor does it state anything about the motivations of anybody. It claims that the Palestinian people are in the process of being obliterated. This is either true or false. I think it's true. I think the facts support my position too. I think that any objective observer who knows much about the situation in Gaza would agree based purely upon the facts.

The second statement, on the other hand, is simply wrong. It claims that the palestinians collectively want to kill all jews. It further claims that no palestinians have attempted to compromise. This is obviously incorrect, it's not a matter of opinion, it's just wrong. Helping to distribute such lies in the interests of balance is the sort of thing that the corporate media prides itself on. We don't.

In this case, the facts are biased.

chekov

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Not exactly the sort of thing I was getting at but here's an example of a posting that was deleted even though it was doing nothing more than poking a bit of fun at some of the more ridiculous ravings on indymedia. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055289973 I'd call it fair comment:D

Harshly critical and satirical articles do actually get published on indymedia (e.g. http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87534 ). Just not ones that are simple-minded stupid tabloid cliches. If you think that story is funny, you must love blonde jokes. A key to decent satire is actually knowing the first thing about the subject.

It's also an amazingly visible story for something that you claim was deleted.

The lessons that I'm learning here from the masters of accuracy!

Dublin's Finest

chekov wrote: »

Your inference is incorrect. The material that they distribute is banned as they are conspiranoids. I am unaware of them actually ever posting a storyand if they did, which they could do like anybody as it's an open publishing site, it would be removed quickly. Unlike here, where it seems that any old crap is okay as long as it resonates with a moderator's prejudices. I mean this thread is ridiculous, some kid moaning because his repeatedly posted information-free comments got hidden on some website and some other idiot throwing out all sorts of made-up-off the-top-of-his-head smears. What a joke.

Anyway, one of the reason that indymedia has made its moderation policy more strict over the years is that, if you don't, you get trolls such as yourself and your juvenile co-critic spending their time throwing out any old ****e continually and never even registering the merest hint of shame when they are revealed to be totally lying. It is not a bulletin board. Anybody can post anything, but if it doesn't have some news or information content, it will be removed.

I sincerely hope that 'idiot' reference isn't aimed at me. I've no problem with my ideas or opinions being attacked, that's the nature of debate. Review what you'v just said there to see who is really acting juvenile.

chekov

Dublin's Finest wrote: »

I sincerely hope that 'idiot' reference isn't aimed at me. I've no problem with my ideas or opinions being attacked, that's the nature of debate. Review what you'v just said there to see who is really acting juvenile.

So, let me get this straight.

You go about the place spouting smears in public about stuff that you don't appear to have the first clue about. When your smears are shown to be untrue, you don't retract them, apologise or anything similar. In fact you seem to take your own credibility and integrity so unseriously that you don't even pause for shame, you just move onto the next smear.

You behave like this and you get gravely offended when somebody refers to you as an idiot?

You need to examine your life strategy dude. You are heading for a lifetime of being permanently offended. Idiot is the charitable interpretation.

segaBOY

chekov wrote: »

You behave like this and you get gravely offended when somebody refers to you as an idiot?

You need to examine your life strategy dude. You are heading for a lifetime of being permanently offended. Idiot is the charitable interpretation.

*Cough* you have shown yourself as a fine ambassador for indymedia, keep up the good work dude :rolleyes:

billy the squid

chekov wrote: »

Harshly critical and satirical articles do actually get published on indymedia (e.g. http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87534 ). Just not ones that are simple-minded stupid tabloid cliches. If you think that story is funny, you must love blonde jokes. A key to decent satire is actually knowing the first thing about the subject.

It's also an amazingly visible story for something that you claim was deleted.

The lessons that I'm learning here from the masters of accuracy!

The person who posted the image in this story obvously doesn't know the people of Limerick very well then, yet the blatant generalisation was allowed on your site.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78444

Also I note comment 3 of the same story refers to Michael Noonan as a former blueshirt, not only is it factually inaccurate, he was never in the blueshirts as they were disbanded before he was even born, but it is also defamatory.

Yet indymedia allowed it.

Also, I notice that when ever Shell is mentioned the S is replaced with a dollar sign. If you claim that you seek facts rather than opinion, why is this allowed in your headlines?

Example.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78969?comment_order=asc

Also another example of anti-FG entry, which might also be considered defamatory. The target this time is Seanad candidate Danial Sullivan.

Bare in mind that I have no love for Enda Kenny or his party, however, your editors should have knocked this entry on the head

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/82840

Can you prove that Mr. Sullivan was a "cynical" advocate of the diaabled. No, the use of the term "cynical" is opinion, not fact.

Had the dip**** of a writer done his research he would have found that one of Mr. Sullivan's family members would be directly affected by government policy on the disabled, thus making him perfectly within his rights to stand up for them, as opposed to being some do-gooder that knows nothing.

You talk of people spreading smears, you are the one whose website suggest that anyone moving to Limerick should be armed. Were that my house featured in the first linked post, you would be facing a libel action right now.

Your the one whose website accuses someone of being a cynical advocate of the disabled when they havent a clue as to who or what they are talking about.

Dublin's Finest

chekov wrote: »

So, let me get this straight.

You go about the place spouting smears in public about stuff that you don't appear to have the first clue about. When your smears are shown to be untrue, you don't retract them, apologise or anything similar. In fact you seem to take your own credibility and integrity so unseriously that you don't even pause for shame, you just move onto the next smear.

You behave like this and you get gravely offended when somebody refers to you as an idiot?

You need to examine your life strategy dude. You are heading for a lifetime of being permanently offended. Idiot is the charitable interpretation.

Going about the place?? I'm hardly on a tannoy on O'Connell St 'dude'. I've made a comment about the nature of the content on Indymedia. The last thing I smeared was a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

Other than that you're right....my life strategy is in need of a good examination. I seem to be spending a little bit too much of my time arguing with someone on the fringe of the Irish media, rather than getting on with my job of being a journalist.

And of course, it's me that's the idiot not the person who shares his moniker with one of the great Russian playwrights and short-story authors while comically mispelling it.

panda100

I like Indymedia and find it a refreshing source compared to the biased spin from the establishment media.

However,Indymedia has a ludicruous censorship policy.Ive had numerous posts removed in the past and this has really diminished,in my eyes, its worth as an independent credible news source.Its probably why its not the hub of intellectual discussion as it should be but more just an event noticeboard now. I rarely write on it anymore except to put up an event notice.

Indymedia needs a serious shakeup! A good start would be ensuring that at least one member of the editorial board is not a WSM member!Its always going to be biased with an anarchist monopoly.Why not allow editors from other left partys??

billy the squid

I see from his profile that Chekov has been online since my last post but failed to reply.

Why no response chekov?

lostexpectation

ah yes panda who thought some kids with balaclavas at a protest meant the ira and anarchist were in cahoots.

lostexpectation

DeVore wrote: »

What I try and look for is a general spread of annoyance which indicates that there isnt bias in the system. Its not easy though! For example, StormF'er think of us as "pinko liberals" while Indymedia seem to consider us a bunch of fascists. That means we're probably about in the middle. Which is fine by me.

more juvenility from dev awe are lucky you haven't made a SF or an indie just a dailymail...

bedrock#1

Dublin's Finest wrote: »

I don't think anything to do with Indymedia should be debated on this forum to be honest. It's reactionary, hysterical and obsessed with conspiracies. It's a disservice to politics of the left. It should stay on the politics forums.

The kind of discourse it hosts lead to people like Pronsias de Rossa getting punched in the face outside Liberty Hall.

Just my tuppence...

Look at the video posted on wise up journal.....
It seems Mr.DeRossa was the attacker.....

http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=268

Gobán Saor

chekov wrote: »

From the publishing guide:http://www.indymedia.ie/publishing_guide

"Opinion pieces must be original. We ask authors to put a reasonable amount of effort into making their arguments clearly and backing them up with evidence. We are particularly keen on articles which show evidence of original research or a fresh angle of analysis about an issue. If you just want to have a rant off the top of your head, a blog is a better bet."

Fair enough. An entirely reasonable guideline. However, it is directed as contributions that are specifically published as opinion pieces rather than as comments on a story. As your editorial guidelines state:

Anybody can post a story, or a comment on a story to Indymedia.

Comments are just that, comments and would, I presume, be generally expected to be relatively free of hard information or news. My question remains: does Indymedia welcome comments on published news stories without a proviso that such comments, in themselves, contain original news or information?

Following on from that, if the answer is yes, then why are many "right-wing" comments removed with an excuse of "not news or info?"

Alternatively, if the answer is no, then why are "left-wing" or anarchist comments that are equally devoid of news content allowed to remain?

Again, I should reiterate, Indymedia is your site and you are entitled to restrict it to anarchist/leftie points of view only if you so wish. But when you publish editorial guidelines and then fail to apply them objectively, expect to be challenged.

Gobán Saor

chekov wrote: »

A number of points.

Firstly, the initial comment is in the passive voice, it does not state that "all Israelis" are doing this nor does it state anything about the motivations of anybody.

Hmmm, so active vs passive voice is now a valid criteria for deletion/non-deletion of a comment? That's a pretty feeble excuse. Essentially, passive or active voiced statements have the same meaning - its just a different emphasis. EG, "the Palestinian people are being obliterated" means the same as "someone is obliterating the Palestinian people" and, of course, that someone is understood to be Israel. Therefore the statement is equivalent to saying "Israel is obliterating the entire Palestinian people." In fact, you yourself appear to share this semantic analysis:

chekov wrote: »

It claims that the Palestinian people are in the process of being obliterated. This is either true or false. I think it's true.

I don't. Lots of people don't. To obliterate a people means to kill them in an act of genocide. I do not think it is sustainable that Israel intends to commit genocide against the Palestinian people. This is not to say for a moment that Israel is perfect, it is not. In fact, it has committed many injustices against its neighbours. However, it is not a black and white situation, the Palestinians too must shoulder at least some of the blame. There are tenable arguments as to exactly how much blame should be shouldered by either side and these could be debated at length. However that is not the point. The point is that is it a matter of opinion rather than fact to say that "Israel is obliterating the entire Palestinian people." At best, extending the most unfavourable interpretation possible to Israel's actions, you could say that Israel was bent on denying the Palestinian people a viable state of their own. But even this is not the same as "obliteration" of an entire people. (The Irish people were denied a state of our own for a long time, but we're not obliterated - we're still here.)

chekov wrote: »

I think the facts support my position too. I think that any objective observer who knows much about the situation in Gaza would agree based purely upon the facts.

Fair enough, that's what you think. But the facts are capable of a different interpretation also.

chekov wrote: »

The second statement, on the other hand, is simply wrong. It claims that the palestinians collectively want to kill all jews.

No it doesn't. It said "kill and/or expel." As I understand it, this was indeed the policy of the PLO up to about the early 1990's. It was only changed to acceptance of the right of Israel to even exist after much internal debate and opposition. It remains the policy of Hamas and Hezbollah to this day. It is clear that there is widespread support among the Palestinian people (and their elected representatives, particularly Hamas) for murderous attacks on Israeli civilian men, women and children. It is not unreasonable to draw the conclusion that there is significant collective support in the Palestinian population for a policy to "kill and/or expel" all Jews from the area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.

chekov wrote: »

It further claims that no palestinians have attempted to compromise. This is obviously incorrect, it's not a matter of opinion, it's just wrong.

What it actually said was "The Palestinians, either secular Arab nationalists or Islamic fundementalists have never compromised since 1948 and have been involved in constant attacks on Israeli security forces and civilians ever since." A factual matrix can be found for this assertion.
FACT: The Palestinians rejected the original UN resolution in 1948 for a two state solution that would have given them 47% of Palestine.
FACT: For the next 45 years, the Palestinians refused to recognise the right of Israel to even exist.
FACT: large segments of Palestinian opinion, including some of their elected representatives (and a majority in Gaza) still do not recognise the right of Israel to exist.
FACT: there are attacks, by Palestinians almost every day on Israeli purely civilian targets.
FACT these attacks are permitted (if not actually perpetrated) by the elected representatives of the Palestinian people.

On balance, I'd say the statement is largely if not completely supported by the facts and certainly cannot just be dismissed as "just wrong." By the way, I'm not necessarily asserting that the Israeli position is entirely morally correct, simply that a reasonable argument can be made that it is not entirely wrong.

chekov wrote: »

Helping to distribute such lies in the interests of balance is the sort of thing that the corporate media prides itself on. We don't.

You seem to be equating "facts" with "things that you believe." There is a difference. An objective media outlet should be able to distinguish.

chekov wrote: »

In this case, the facts are biased.

What can I say?:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Gobán Saor

chekov wrote: »

In fairness, I accept that there is every possibliity that there is selective editing. I think it's impossible to remove one's viewpoint from any type of editorial decision and it is entirely possible that posts that editors disagree with are more hastily dealt with than other posts. I would, however, like some actual pointers to back it up since, while I accept that it is eminently possible, I can't actually address it unless I have something concrete to go on.

Here's some selective editing to go on. In this case a post about the death of Terence Wheelock in Garda custody. You might recall that the inquest returned a verdict of suicide. The post was critical and abusive of the Gardai ("ignorant SCUM") and says his death was "murder" in defiance of the inquest verdict. Yet, these totally unsubstantiated (even disproven) allegations didn't attract the red biro of the watchful censors.

Justice for the wheelocks
author by PIP.DaMO
publication date Thu Apr 10, 2008 13:05
Report this post to the editors

It is Terrible that the family has to take to the streets and wave banners to try and get some justice for the murder of a young lad that should be playing football today not ****ing buried.
They (GARDA) have a lot to answer for and they are just ignorant
SCUM that wont answer any questions about any of the other people
that were killed in a POLICE CELL.
PEACE IS ALWAYS WITH YOU FUZZY

And here's another post on the same topic, only yesterday, from Ciaran (of the WSM - I'm sure he's known to you:D) which also went undeleted even though it makes an unsubstantiated allegation of police brutality.

Three years gone but not forgotten...
author by Ciaran - WSM, (in APC)
publication date Tue Jun 03, 2008 14:33
Report this post to the editors

Yesterday saw the third anniversary of the death of Terence Wheelock - may he and other victims of police brutality never be forgotten... No justice, No Peace!

On the other hand, here's a post that was deleted yesterday that commented critically on a previous well known left wing poster. It was making the fairly reasonable point that criticising the Government ministers in a non-sequitor kind of way for having "their collective heads still stuck in the local parish hurling-results" was perhaps not entirely appropriate.

Oscailt 3.1 Automatic Notification
Date : Tuesday, Jun 3 2008, 4:28pm
Action : hide comment 229464 performed by Ronan
Reason : Not news or info.

--- Comment 229464 ---
Parent Story : http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=87729
Title : What's the problem, Fred?
Author : Hurler on the ditch
Organisation : Longford Slashers
Email :
Phone :
Address :
Related Link :
Time Posted : Tuesday, Jun 3 2008, 3:18pm
--- Comment Content ---
"their collective heads still stuck in the local parish hurling-results"

And this adds, what precisely to your quite correct and appropriate condemnation of the Government? Surely their actions or lack thereof stands on its merits or demerits without the need to attribute such a ridiculous motivation for their lack of action on Shannon.

Sounds like a classic piece of anti-Gaelic Games bigotry to me. Shame on you. You have sullied a worthy cause with your childish display.

G'wan ya boy, ya!

Reason given: "not news or info." :D

But if you look at this thread, http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87799?topic=antiwar&comment_limit=0&condense_comments=false#comment229515you will see a string of postings that are supportive of the so-called "Raytheon Nine" that have no news or information content at all, but are simply messages of solidarity.

I rest my case that the editorial guidelines are not applied objectively and are applied more severely to posters with what are deemed to be right wing views than to "lefties."