ImcHistoryJayOne

Table of content :

Essay coordinated by jay from new-imc and imc philly

First person in the text is jay's voice. See also: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2007-January/thread.html .

In the early days of anything when everything is possible, when you don't know what path you're on or if you're on a path at all, there is a certain freshness and childlike sense of wonder at all the things that happen that you wouldn't dare suppose. In Seattle in November, 1999, as tear gas canisters were literally exploding in the streets during the protests surrounding the World Trade Orgainzation's ministerial, as riot police advanced on the Independent Media Center's front door, Indymedia organizer Jeff Perlstein stood in a meeting of the IMC's volunteers and elucidated a vision: this independent media center, he declared, can be a model for other similar media centers all over the world. Take this model home, said Perlstein, make it work where you live, and together we'll be able to empower people around the world to make their own media in order to make a better world.

Despite the vision of Perlstein and some other media organizers who saw the potential for the Indymedia model to take root around the world, when the WTO protests ended, most of Indymedia's organizers were certain that the project was finished. They expected to pack up their gear, return to their communities, and continue their own media-making, as they had before the WTO protests, in relative isolation.

No one told this to the rest of the world. During the WTO Ministerial, Indymedia's "open publishing newswire" had empowered thousands of independent reporters to provide their own breaking news coverage of the conference. Afterward, and quite unexpectedly, tens of thousands of site use continued the convergence on the newswire. They found a place for their thoughts there, using open publishing as a way to explore the World Trade Organization and the protests against it far beyond "the news" - to rant or rave about what had occurred, to follow stories of the protesters who were still in jail, to post analysis of what they had personally seen in the streets, to argue about tactics used and abused. Those who passionately followed coverage of the WTO Ministerial on the Indymedia site, and especially those who read or posted to the newswire, felt actively engaged; they embraced the project's rallying cry -- "Be the Media!" - and considered themselves to be an integral part of the Indymedia project.

Initially, they felt part of something that didn't exist. In the weeks immediately following the WTO Ministerial, media activists, both in Seattle and around the world, debated whether a thing called "Indymedia" would continue in any form. Would the Indymedia.org web site continue to be a place for news about "the alter-globalization movement?" Would this site remain a project of the group that continued to organize locally in Seattle? Would the site continue at all? In January 2000, Matthew Arnison, one of Indymedia's "techies" who helped originate the programming code that underpinned the first Indymedia.org site, circulated an e-mail among Indymedia organizers suggesting the project should carry on as in international network of local independent media centers (IMCs); the IMC in Seattle would use the URL "seattle.indymedia.org" and any IMC that would theoretically form in another city would use a web site based at "[name of city].indymedia.org". This elemental shift in Indymedia site organization enabled organizers to envision the formation of a huge network of local media collectives, all using Indymedia.org as a home base.

In March 2000 a group of activists in Boston, many of whom had organized with Indymedia in Seattle, put this idea into practice by forming an IMC to provide alternative coverage of an international gathering of genetic engineering opponents called "Biodevestation." Arthur Foelsche, one of the Boston/Biodevestation IMC's organizers who was also involved with Indymedia in Seattle, recalls the Boston/Biodevestation group felt comfortable using the Indymedia name partially because of Indymedia's own lack of clarity: "Because there was no mission statement and because there was no organization one could appropriate Indymedia and feel like an owner." Sharing office space and resources with the organization that planned the Biodevestation counter-convergence and protests, the Boston/Biodevestation IMC used the same basic working group structure and web code as the Seattle IMC.

In April, 2000, activists in the United States and around the world converged in Washington DC to confront the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund at their annual international meeting. Indymedia supporters who planned to attend the "A16" convergence, myself included, decided there must be an IMC in Washington to enable grassroots coverage of the counter-convention and protests. Adding money from our own pockets to a donation from the primary protest-planning group, the Mobilization for Global Justice, a coalition of independent media makers rented the first floor of a warehouse/art-space to use as an ambitious IMC convergence center. We consciously based the structure of the "A16" IMC on that of the IMC in Seattle, forming autonomous working groups based in various media - audio, video and print, as well as a tech working group and a web-based dispatch system that used on-line communication and a network of cell phones to coordinate coverage around the city. Throughout the days surrounding A16 we provided minute-by-minute coverage of events outside and around the WB/IMF meetings, as well as an online home for the type of independent analysis of the international institutions that did not have a voice in the corporate-owned media. Over eight hundred independent media makers signed up for A16 IMC press passes, doubling the number of media-makers who signed the Seattle IMC's "guestbook" during the WTO ministerial. At A16, both the "alter-globalization" movement and Indymedia appeared boundless and booming.

The successes of the Biodevestation and A16 IMCs demonstrated that the organizational model used in Seattle could travel. Indymedia organizers e-mailed each other excitedly about upcoming convergences where independent media-makers were already planning to host their own IMCs, such as the Republican Party's National Convention in Philadelphia, the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles and the September World Bank/IMF meetings in Prague. We began to assume local IMCs would appear wherever there was an "alter-globalization" convergence.

Most US-based Indymedia organizers had no idea that by A16, IMC organizing had already started in earnest beyond the borders of the U.S. In 1999, during the June 18 Reclaim the Streets protests in the United Kingdom, a coalition of media-makers from independent media organizations such as Undercurrents, Squall, and Schnews, had built a multimedia center to provide video, audio, print and web-based news of events in the street. After the WTO Ministerial, when, as Tony from the IMC-UK recalls, one of our mates came back (Sam) very enthusiastic about the IMC centre, UK independent media activists decided to connect their Mayday 2000 media center with Indymedia. Tony says they felt comfortable doing this because they viewed Indymedia as an open meme, amorphous and adaptable, and therefore available for them to develop as they saw fit. "We didn't ask," says IMC-UK techie, Andi, "we just registered indymedia.org.uk to have the Mayday 2000 action covered....Then we told the US techies that we did that and asked if they were OK with us using indymedia.org."

By June, 2000, there were IMCs in Belgium, Boston, Calgary, Italy, Los Angels, the UK, Philadelphia, Seattle, Washington DC and Windsor, Canada. Even the network's most enthusiastic organizers didn't expect the Indymedia "open meme" to spread as vigorously as it did after Mayday, or that "meme" to develop so rapidly into the primary on-line meeting and debate space for organizers of the emergent "alter-globalization" movement. "It was the most organically explosive growth~E," recalls Foelsche, referring to both the "alter-globalization" movement and Indymedia. "I can't think of anything else that grew like it." By October 2000, soon after the IMC created to cover the September 26 World Bank/International Monetary Fund meetings in Prague attracted nearly a thousand media-makers from around the world, there were thirty-eight local IMC sites linked through the www.indymedia.org page, including active collectives in Australia, South America, and the West Asia. According to Evan Henshaw-Plath, one of Indymedia's early techies: "By the fall [of 2000] we were realizing something serious was going on." Most of the new IMC groups e-mailed Indymedia after they were already organized, not to "ask permission" to join the project, but to reach out to other IMCs that were also part of what they saw as an expanding and inspiring independent media movement.

As more IMC groups formed around the world, people within the network began to realize that such rapid growth came with potential problems. The great visibility of the network made it an easy focus for law enforcement that wished to counter those who questioned dominant social and political structures. Police in Philadelphia, for example, when preparing to counter protests at 2000 Republican National Convention, listed the Independent Media Center as one of the primary protest groups and monitored it as a potential source of disruption. The open publishing newswires also became an easy target for people across the political spectrum who didn't appreciate the progressive politics of many of the regular posters, and filled to the hilt with spam. Indymedia organizers soon realized that every local IMC, whether a temporary project created for a convergence or a longer-term IMC planted firmly within a local community, was the public face of the network, and should at least be organized well enough to withstand outside attacks.

Even with this concern, throughout 2000 almost any local group of independent media makers calling itself "an IMC" found instant acceptance within the network. There was no clear process to determine which groups should be welcomed as a full part of Indymedia and which local collectives needed to spend more time organizing. IMCs wanting to become part of the ever-expanding "cities list" posted on the left column of the www.indymedia.org site became part of the network by directly contacting Indymedia techies. Usually the techies would discuss the group informally via e-mail, via Internet Relay Chat (IRC), or in person when possible, using a combination of word-of-mouth inquiry, internet research and gut instinct to decide whether the aspiring IMC group was legitimate. "We tried on one hand to trust people and on the other to check people out," says Foelsche. If there seemed to be general agreement within the IMC tech group that a local IMC could be trusted, someone with the technical know-how would open an indymedia.org domain for them and welcome the IMC into the fold.

Most of these local IMCs self-organized according to the unspoken principles at the core of both Indymedia and the "alter-globalization" movement - non-hierarchical, horizontal structure, consensus-based decision-making, transparent and open communication and a commitment to making social and economic change rather than profit. Some of these local IMCs formed, instinctually, into viable, sustainable, long-term entities - organizing as a collective rather than as the playground of just a few individuals, welcoming all community media-makers rather than restricting access. Others quickly proved themselves unsustainable and folded. "Sometimes people took [an IMC] and went with it and did incredible stuff," recalls Henshaw-Plath, "and sometimes it just died."

IMC techs such quickly realized that choosing which IMCs should be part of the network based upon their intuition rather than any set of public criteria could easily lead to a power imbalance within Indymedia. In early 2001, techies declared a "moratorium" on the creation of any new IMCs until the network's non-tech organizers developed a procedure for welcoming new collectives. In May, 2001 participating in an e-mail thread explaining the "moratorium from the tech perspective," tech volunteer Micah Anderson wrote that, "The tech group started to feel, (at least I did, I can't speak for the rest of the group) a little self-conscious about the power that we had and were exerting on behalf of the IMC as a whole, without input coming from the rest of the IMC~E. We were creating new IMCs, but doing so only because we decided who was a valid IMC, nobody else outside the tech group was a part of that decision."

In April of 2001, several dozen Indymedia activists, mainly from North America, had gathered in San Francisco to address some of these power imbalances while also codifying some of the network's shared ideals. This raucous, challenging conference eked out consensus on both Indymedia's "Draft Principles of Unity," and the network's "Draft Membership Criteria." With semi-formalized network principles in hand, a small group of non-tech Indymedia organizers created an international working group to help aspiring IMC learn about the Indymedia network's shared values before deciding whether or not they wanted to join.

This "new-imc working group," of which I was a part, opened in May of 2001 and immediately became the first point of contact for any media collective - organizing in any language, from any cultural background, coming from any political orientation -- that wanted to be part of Indymedia. We agreed to support local IMCs in their organizing by answering any and all questions they may have about the network and by giving advice about the kind of organizing that may lead to the formation of a sustainable IMC: is your IMC composed of long-term community members who understand local issues?, we asked. Are there enough members of your group to sustain an ongoing IMC? Do you have public meetings? Do you have an open e-mail list and a website that features open publishing? Do you have a mission statement and transparent, flexible editorial policy that will help you weather spam attacks, potential government attention and otherwise unexpected tough times~E? We would then guide them in responding to the draft membership criteria, helping them introduce themselves to the network. Eventually, we would put this information in front of the "imc-process" e-mail list, which consists of liaisons representing local collectives from around the network. The ultimate decision of whether or not to accept a new IMC would then rest with the network as a whole.

Through trials and many errors, the new-imc working group has developed a system for helping local IMCs navigate this "new-imc process." To some aspiring IMCs - those who have spent a long time becoming familiar with Indymedia and have already successfully organized a collective of local independent media-makers -- this system may appear to be a rational set of questions the network asks to form the foundation of a long-term, trusting organizational and personal relationship. To other IMCs, especially to those who are not yet well-organized, the new-imc process has appeared confusing, bureaucratic, or even downright oppressive.

As the Indymedia network expanded to include IMCs from six continents, the new-imc working group expanded to include volunteers from all of Indymedia's regions, including IMC-Europe, IMC-latina (Latin America and Spanish-speaking IMCs), IMC-Oceania (Australia and Eastern Asia) and IMC-Africa. Volunteers from these regions help local IMCs in their areas develop and support them as they join the international network. Some IMCs have also built their own national networks, as well as their own processes for welcoming collectives into them. The IMC-UK has reconceived itself as the "United Kollectives" and now operates as a loose a network composed of nearly a dozen local collectives. IMC-Brasil is also the umbrella for 12 local IMC collectives, which operate semi-autonomously throughout the country.

While the stated goal of the new-imc working group is to support every local IMC application, not every IMC that approaches the working group ultimately joins Indymedia. Many times aspiring IMC collectives contact the new-imc working group and receive a response from the working group including the draft membership criteria and encouragement to "organize, organize, organize!" Then, they never write back. Some IMCs who do enter the new-imc process never quite make the transition from "aspiring IMC" to a become functional member of the network. Certain IMC groups are unable to inspire enough volunteers to join to create a sustainable organization. Others fail to develop healthy internal communication, or, being unfamiliar with non-hierarchical organizing, are unable to develop an open collective in which all share equal power. New-imc volunteer and Houston IMC member Nick Cooper suggests this occurs because people who are forming IMCs are, after all, people: "We're suffering from similar problems that society is suffering from," says Cooper. "We still have hierarchical systems inside of us."

As a member of the new-imc working group since its formation I've personally seen many local IMCs benefit from the advice new-imc volunteers give them, especially suggestions to slow down, take their time, and focus more as much as possible on community-based organizing before aspiring to join the network. I have also seen (and made) many mistakes that have deflated the forward momentum of aspiring IMC groups. I have pressed African IMCs too hard to assure their members are from the local community, rather than organizers transplanted there from the West. I have asked too few questions of a North American IMC and found that the group's responses to the network membership criteria to be untrue. I have sent an aspiring IMC's information to the imc-process list prematurely, seeing it join the network before its members were actually ready, then watched as it fell apart. I have taken far too long to respond to local IMCs who have contacted me, leaving them wanting for much needed advice.

Despite these mistakes and more, the new IMC working group has helped over 100 new IMCs join Indymedia. From 2001 to 2006, even as the "alter-globalization" movement shifted (or perhaps lost) focus in reaction to the United States' "War on Terror," even as online technologies like blogs and wikis became a popular way for people to have a public voice without relying on Indymedia's newswires, IMCs groups continued to find purpose in independent media organizing. By June 2006 there were more than 150 local IMCs listed on the www.indymedia.org web page; almost every large North American, South American and Australian city is home to a local collective, as are most countries in Europe. IMC organizing has also slowly expanded in Africa and Asia, where activists with little access to computers are transforming the Indymedia model to rely less and less on the internet.

Yet, compared to the network's early days, by mid-2006 Indymedia's growth is a trickle. Since June, 2006, less than only a handful of IMCs have communicated with the new-imc working group about network membership and only two have worked through the "formal" new-imc process. (One of the latter two was in a country undergoing a rapid and dramatic empowerment of grassroots community groups: Venezuela. It was one of the few South American countries which did not yet have any IMCs.) Also, long-established IMCs, like IMC-Italy and IMC-Beirut, have recently paused or ceased operations, citing volunteer burnout and a need to reevaluate the way they want to approach independent media making. Has the Indymedia network's great growth spurt ended? Are there no more cities in the internet-connected world that want to support a local IMC? In the days of blogs, wikis and YouTube^?, when everyone with internet access can effectively "Be the media," do media-makers still need Indymedia's newswires to enable them to have a voice? With the global movement for justice fragmented, what role can a network of activist independent media centers play?

Today's Indymedia no longer undulates as it did when it was new. There are now established unifying principles and criteria for joining the network. There are customary communication processes, regular systems for carrying out Indymedia business like welcoming new IMCs, and generally recognized (although arguably effective) procedures for openly debating network-wide organizational issues. Despite these advances - or perhaps because of them -- there is not the same breathless sense of wonder that existed at the beginning.

Still, there is tremendous potential for Indymedia to expand, transform and have great effect. Thousands of activists still attend Indymedia convergences at protest events and social forums each year and well more than a hundred IMCs around the world still making media every day. With this type of energy and good work happening, the network is far from stagnant.

Despite having such consistent potential, Indymedia still has no coherent plan for the future. In the absence of definitive strategies and unified goals, Indymedia will likely continue to be unfocused and unwieldy. However, there is the strong sense within the network that if early Indymedia had been more clear about its purpose, more strict with its organizational structure and more proprietary over its methods, activists from around the world many never have felt empowered to organize on their own and declare themselves an IMC; as Henshaw-Plath suggests, "If we said, - do it this way,' no one would have done it."

Despite its many missteps and irreparable misadventures, despite all the external threats it faces and the internal squabbles it has not yet outgrown, Indymedia is still nebulous enough for media-makers to embrace it and make it their own. With the future so uncertain, this grand, gaping network may be just as likely to become vigorous, relevant and essential again as it is to fade away.
to top