Sunday, February 11, 2007

Indymedia.com, or the Independent Media Center, began in 1999 in Seattle Washington to cover protests against the World Trade Organization. They syndicated the news coverage through an independent publication called, “The Blind Spot” as well as the IMC’s website. The website received an overwhelming response with over 1.5 million hits during WTO protests alone. The following year the first IMC office was established in Boston, and subsequently requests were sent in to start up IMC offices in cities all around the world. Currently they have an office on every continent in over one hundred and fifty cities.
Indymedia today is a “collective of independent media organizations and hundreds of journalists offering grassroots, non-corporate coverage.” Drawing from the work of free lance writers and independent publications all around the world, Indymedia is a place to find the news that mainstream news networks can’t or won’t tell you. Their mission is to undermine the system of corporate-driven news networks which often skew the truth in order to sell their news. In effect, mainstream news networks will simply not publish world issues that they don’t think the Western world would care about. Indymedia offsets the balance of power of the western-centered news networks by providing news content from around the world. Ultimately they are trying to re-install the values of original news media which was to report world news truthfully.
What is truly unique about the site is that any person has the right to contribute, by either writing articles or providing a language translation of an article. This makes the website a part of the shift to Web 2.0. It is a fully interactive news network, where the common man’s perception of news worthy issues can be aired. Contributors to Indymedia have no ties to government or corporation, so the news content is intended to tell the real story.
This may make some readers skeptical of the legitimacy of the news content, and of contributors who may write biased stories in favor of the websites anti-capitalist theme. In the FAQ section of the website the question is asked, Should I believe the news I read on Indymedia? To this the editor responds, “Should you believe the news on CNN?” He admonishes people to read Indymedia with a skeptical eye just like they should with any news source. What Indymedia offers is a “safe space” for not for profit news writers to air their stories. The organization can only hope that the “open-publishing” structure encourages honest contributors, and they seldom often get hate news on their news wire. Indeed, integral to the organization is its not-for profit structure. Indymedia is funded entirely by donation. While this keeps the content grassroots, it also means that they can not afford to pay any of the contributors to the site. So the system is heavily reliant on passionate activists who believe in the mission of providing alternative media news content. As a result, the site bears a heavy anti-American government sentiment and seems to push stories that reveal that belief. For example in their FAQ statement they describe how their writers are both activists and journalists, but they strictly require that their contributors not get involved with the situations they report on. They claim that they support non-violent action and “do not approve of war criminals such as the members of the Bush Administration or the Al Quaeda regime.” In light of this, their mission to be anti-establishment seems to be undermined by a stronger mission to be anti-bush.
In addition, the lack of funding results in a stagnant flow of news to the site. Often the same news stories will remain the headline for two to three days. This makes the site less of a competitor to the mainstream sites. IN addition the upkeep of the website seems poor. The graphics are still relatively crude and some of the links to their other news broadcasts, such as live radio and satellite television don’t work or are in the process of being built.
While the concept of Indymedia is ideal, it is yet an inferior news source. Maybe in the future with the upsurge of interactive media predicted by Web 2.0, this site will gain more momentum.

No comments: