Indyconference Report Back

The US IndyConference took place on February 18 - 20 in Austin TX. Visit http://www.indyconference.org/ for details.

OVERALL THOUGHTS

The conference was incredibly exciting and frustrating at the same time. There were about 75 participants from all over the US, and at least two from Europe. It was so interesting to meet IMCers from so many different cities and there was a tremendous amount of solidarity in hearing of the different struggles / energies from different collectives.

The conference also brought to light and suffered from the lack of organization of Indymedia. There is almost no regular communication between different collectives, so it was difficult to find a basis for conversation at the conference. The system of liaisons and global lists has deteriorated since the initial days of IMC and the conference organizers and those studying Indymedia pointed out that it is almost impossible to communicate with most IMCs. Contact information on local Indymedia websites is not updated and emails to lists often go unanswered.

Thus, there was almost no strategic thinking or planning for Indymedia as a whole at this conference. This was a skill-sharing and networking conference. There were no "ImcNantesPrinciples of Unity" type decisions and almost no discussion on global process. Is it possible to have global process discussions with a network of 200 different collectives in so many languages that have almost no established channels of communication? Um, only time will tell. But the conference did highlight the lack of commitment to global communication throughout most of Indymedia. Because of the growing differences in opinions on process and perspective, some commented that this is a good thing.

The conference also illuminated what I would call two different visions of Indymedia. There were those at the conference whose focus is on engaging mainstream culture, and those whose focus is on supporting an alternative culture. This was cause for A LOT of tension at the conference. Most of it was unspoken or was not directly addressed. There were no direct confrontations. Everyone is happy to go back to their local IMCs and do their own thing. This was most frustrating to me because I see room in Indymedia for both visions and think that the work of both arms complements each other.

I am excited to be back here in Philly and to talk about the issues that were brought up at the conference. The following are some more specific thoughts and observations that I hope stimulate people and leads to further discussion.

PROCESS

Process is so important for Indymedia. In fact, I would say that there is more emphasis in Indymedia on process than product. Projects have to pass the collective decision-making process bar before they meet any other objectives. The ImcNantesPrinciples of Unity are not about how many page hits you get or how many publications you create, but that IMCs are following the right process.

Thus I was very surprised that none of the workshops at the conference dealt directly with process. This seems incredible to me for a movement who has identified the establishment of proper processes as a major goal. What are the decision-making processes that define the local collectives? What are the strategies we can use to grow in a limited hierarchy environment? How do limited hierarchy organizations change with size? What structures and channels of communication do we need to be especially concerned with in a limited-hierarchy environment? How do we think strategically? How do large and sprawling collectives reach consensus? What other organizations (aside from the Zapatistas) are models for this structure? Resources: how do we quickly and strategically allocate resources without hierarchy or money (global finance has actually started to grant money for strategic purposes)? What strategic and everyday decisions need to be consensus-based and what don't? What is the value, in terms of a cost / benefit analysis, of different versions of limited hierarchy and non-hierarchy environments? What is it about the hierarchy of a corporate environment that creates unhealthy concentrations of power? Are we necessarily addressing those in non-hierarchical environments? Can we address those in a limited or fully hierarchical environment? How does money play a role in unhealthy relationships? How can we know what we are doing if we don't talk about it?

Furthermore, if Indymedia is trying to create an alternative model for organizing, why isn't there a major emphasis on documenting it? The organizing models of IMCs need to be articulated, discussed, and rigorously analyzed if they are going to be valuable to anyone, especially Indymedia itself.

It was clear from almost every workshop that Indymedia as a whole has major problems organizing. We are a media network that can't communicate with itself or its allies. Do we want it this way? Do we want to think strategically as a whole? Is the current process worth the price in lack of organization? There are major threats with legal issues, continually sophisticated cyber attacks, server safety, journalist ethics and accountability, and public scrutiny that need to be addressed. Is the network just too large to do this? Should we start organizing regionally to deal with these issues? I think we should start meeting regionally. A regional meeting for this summer for the northeast is being planned.

STRATEGIC THINKING

The lack of Indymedia communication created a lack of basis for discussion at the conference. We couldn't even begin to talk about issues affecting the network as a whole. There are no concrete global goals and thus, of course, no way of measuring them. Are our organizing techniques effective? Is are emphasis directed in the right place? Indymedia has created an incredibly affective formula making local media sites with a forum for radical/liberal content. Do we want to move beyond that?

The most interesting workshop for me was "Academia and IMC" in which a number of professors talked about the work they have done studying the Indymedia. One presented a graph of page hits before and after the begin of the Iraq war showing how readership dropped off after the invasion began. Some of the IMCers inferred that we need to really step up our output after large events in order to keep readership engaged. Another professor presented some of her findings on gender language and constructions used in Indymedia and how some of the uses were reinforcing the language of gender inequality.

This workshop offered me the best hope of having a mechanism for the kinds of strategic thinking that the local IMCs do not collectively do. I have committed to creating a webspace in which some of these findings can be shared and discussions can take place. Details to follow.

TWO TYPE OF IMCers FOCUS

There was a lot of unspoken tension at this conference between those with different approaches to Indymedia. In the interest of discussion, I would simplify the strategies down to a) those who wish to use Indymedia to engage mainstream culture and b) those who wish to use Indymedia to help carve out space for an alternative culture. The former prefers polished and professional looking content and content delivery, while the latter attributes those qualities to corporate news and purposefully desires a raw unpolished look and content. The latter believes that all-volunteer is intimately tied to the mission of Indymedia while the former does not. These issues were almost never directly addressed, so it is hard to say exactly, but I would say the b) is in the majority as far as numbers.

I was very illuminated by the comments of the Portland IMCers. Portland, with I believe 8 total, was the most numerous of any out of town collective and arguably has the most successful Indymedia site. They described an unpolished website and news presentation as a positive value which makes it less intimidating for people to get involved and "Be the Media!" Advanced education, flashy logos, etc were described as part of the myth that corporate media tries to create in order to separate itself and its reporters from the people. A Portland IMCer suggested that fact checking is not of primary importance because the comments section allows for the record to be cleared if inaccuracies do occur. An NYC IMCer rebutted that if she is training someone to write she wants to train them to do it professionally and that the problem with corporate media is that it doesn't check its sources and isn't accurate and that is why the IMC is necessary.

Other differences in perspective were evident in discussing a book deal about Indymedia that has been proposed by a publisher to NYC IMC (do it yourself publishing vs. taking advantage of corporate publisher) and when discussing the merits of using academia for purposes of analysis (grassroots writing and analyses vs. using academic resources) .

I wanted to talk about these differences, because there was so much tension, and I think if people learn to talk about them they can see the value of both strategies, have a basis for articulating differences of opinion, and not get so frustrated. I think that there is room in Indymedia for both approaches, and both sides should see solidarity in each other and support each other. We are all on the same side!!!

LOCAL AUTONOMY

Since there such limited global IMC decision-making enterprise, local autonomy for IMC collectives is the name of the game. Unless collectives really piss people off (the global collective was able to kick Brisbane? out) they are free to interpret the ImcNantesPrinciples of Unity, which I don't believe were actually ratified, and Indymedia for themselves. For some that means declaring themselves all-volunteer (Portland, Houston) while for others that allows for the payment for services and for staff (NYC IMC). IMC is an organic movement that takes the shape of its local surroundings, so different models will continue to pop up in different parts of the country and world.

-- AaronCouch - 06 Mar 2005
to top