Sunday, April 29, 2001
Defending and Sustaining Independent Media Centers: the FBI Visit (Not Raid)
I've wanted to write about this for a week now, and have only been able to get it out today. Your feedback on this is invited and welcome. Send to paul@mediageek.org
Last Saturday (4/21) report of an FBI raid on the Seattle Independent Media Center rippled across the Indymedia universe, including popping up on the live webcast from Quebec City. Then it disappeared from the global IMC site, and conspiracy theories abounded. News turned up last Tuesday in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer saying that the FBI didn't raid, but visited due to stolen security documents from the Summit of the Americas having allegedly been posted on a Seattle-hosted IMC site. The Post also cleared up why the IMC hadn't reported on it -- the FBI got a gag order to keep the IMC from reporting on it.
Finally, on Friday the IMC got the gag order lifted by the same judge who issued it. They released a lengthy and fairly complete statement about the situation, and then held a press conference.
Many folks, including me, have expressed relief that their had not been an actual raid, and that there were no warrants to arrest the registered owner of the indymedia.org domain. Yet, that doesn't mean this was OK. It seems rather clear that the gag order issued against the IMC is an example of unconstitutional prior restraint, that likely wouldn't have survived judicial scrutiny. The gag order didn't simply prevent the IMC from disclosing the contents of the alleged stolen security document--something that might be considered defensible, at least from a judge's perspective. Rather, it prevented the IMC from even reporting that the FBI had visited them or what the visit was about. The court order plainly directs "that INDEPENDENT MEDIA... not disclose to the user of said electronic communication service, nor to any other person, the existence of this Application and Order or the existence of this investigation unless and until otherwise ordered by the Court." The question that must be asked is, how dangerous could the information had been, especially in light of the fact that the Post-Intelligencer reported on it just three days later, acting on information from the government?
In this case constitutionality really doesn't matter because the FBI and the order got the IMC to be silent for a few days--more than enough time for the Summit of the Americas to be over and for the mainstream memory of the Summit and "raid" to fade away. If this short term goal weren't the whole point of the order, then why would the judge who issued it retract it less than a week later? This case should give one pause as we recognize that in the short term nearly any means can be used to silence the press, and those means can be successful. It takes time and money to fight an illegal or unconsitutional action in court. The New York Times and CNN have teams of lawyers waiting to take on and challenge such a case. What sort of resources do independent media have? Clearly not as much, since it took almost a week to get the order lifted.
With the success of independent media in the last few years, especially since the creation of the Independent Media Center movement in Nov. 1999, it's easy for us to miss that part of the success has likely been the result of surprise. Like the enormous protests surrounding the WTO, the powers that be were probably not prepared for such a strong and flexible network like the IMCs. But the FBI visit should serve as notice that they have their sight focused now and are prepared to act. If IMCs and independent media in general are to continue to be an effective check on undemocratic power, and especially if they are to grow into mature and resillient media, then they need resources to bolster their defenses against this power being used on them.
These are questions that directly relate to a vision I've been contemplating: How can indepedent media grow into a sustainable international force? Why can't a citizen-journalist make a resonable living as a journalist within the independent media? And how can this happen? Finally, can IMCs become fully-sustaining--sustaining both the institution and its most contributing members--while remaing independent and fully democratic as institutions (rather than becoming "alternative" or left-leaning versions of mainstream media outlets, which are run primarily in a top down fashion.)
I will post more thoughts on this soon...
posted 4/29/2001 01:00:31 AM [link
to this entry] [respond]
[top]
Thursday, April 19, 2001
The Free Trade Area of the Americas: Look to Independent Media for the News
If you've only been paying attention to the mainstream media you might have missed it. But if you've been keeping up with independent media--especially Indymedia Centers--you've probably heard about the Summit of Americas being held in Quebec City this weekend to negotiate, behind closed doors, the Free Trade Area of the Americas, which aims to bring NAFTA-like trade to the entirety of the Western Hemisphere (except Cuba). Despite the enormous impact such trade agreements can have on nations, communities and citizens, little has been heard about the FTAA in the mainstream media. What little is leaking through the mainstream right now primarily deals with the fact that the center of Quebec City, where the Summit takes place, has been walled off and that thousands of people are expected to attend protests against the FTAA.
Because of this, it stands to question -- if it weren't for the protestors, how much press coverage would the Summit and the FTAA get? In all likelihood, not too much. The WTO ministerial on Nov. 30 1999 would probably only been reported as just another trade negotiation if it had not been for the 10,000+ protestors who showed up to voice their discontent.
Arguably, the same pattern is being repeated here, except for the fact that now Canadian police authorities and the mainstream press are bracing themselves for the protests. But to really find out the whole story -- what is the FTAA and why people oppose it -- you've had to be checking out the indpendent media. Independent news websites like Infoshop.org and ZNet, the online companion to Z Magazine, have extensive collections of information and news about the FTAA and other trade issues. There are also scores of websites specifically centered on the FTAA, like a20.org. While these sites clearly take an oppositional stance towards the FTAA, you have to compare that with the marked absence of any real information about the FTAA available anywhere else, from any other source. One of the major reasons citizens are protesting is because of the very fact that the negotiation of this treaty is closed off from the public, and because our governments and media treat it not as if it were something open for deliberation and debate, but as if it is ultimately inevitable.
Yet, because the mainstream media is largely mute about what the FTAA is really about and why "free trade" might not really be all that "free" for you and me, the average person is still quite unaware and has to go digging to learn more, if one even has been clued in enough to wonder about it in the first place. Luckily, the independent media is far more organized and interconnected than it was even just two years ago, so that information and news is far easier to find, especially if you can access the Internet. Clicking on any of the sites I mention above also will link you to a whole variety of other independent media sources. And the relative success of indymedia in the virtual world has given these citizen-journalists the confidence to push out into the "old media." The Twin Cities IMC and the New York City IMC have broken out of the "silicon tower" to publish print newspapers, the Free Press and the Indypendent, repectively. A national IMC-based paper project has also been started, coinciding with the FTAA, that is distributed electronically for other IMCs or anyone to download, print and distribute.
Also off-line, community and unlicensed micro-power radio stations have banded together to form a loose network broadcasting live news and information about the FTAA and about what's going on in the streets of Quebec City. Microradio.net is using the 'net to reach listeners on-line and to distribute the programming to stations the world over.
Nevertheless, you do have to look. And if this is the first you've heard of the FTAA (and I hope it isn't), I hope I've given some direction to help you look. I also want to stress that these independents aren't doing this for profit, and in most cases aren't being paid and are probably picking up the tab to keep things going themselves. The larger, more organized groups may have developed funding sources, but in any case they all can use more financial support. Coca-cola, GM and Microsoft just aren't willing to pick up the tab for media that challenges the very system they thrive on. If you have local independent media, like an Independent Media Center or a community radio station, give a donation or become a supporting member. If you have to rely on non-local print or Internet sources, please consider becoming a paid subscriber or making a donation to the sites and publications you rely on the most. One could spend $30 a month just on cable TV--that same $30 would be much more vital put to the cause of indepenent media.
posted 4/19/2001 11:01:42 PM [link
to this entry] [respond]
[top]
Thursday, April 12, 2001
Upcoming Indpendent Media Events:
If you're in the Champaign-Urbana, IL area (my home base) there are some interesting independent media-related events going on in the next couple of weeks. Sorry to be parochial for those of you not from 'round here... but them's the breaks.
Micro-Film Verite
A public display of personal cinema in action. This is free film festival featuring 12 radically independent films, sponsored by Micro-Film the magazine of personal cinema in action. Click here to see a schedule. It happens Sat. April 21, 2001, 11:30 am to 5:00pm at the Highdive, 55 E. Main St., Downtown Champaign, IL. Did I mention it's free?
Introduction to the Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center
This is a two-hour introduction to the world-wide Independent Media movement, and to the local IMC's operations. You'll learn how to get involved in the IMC's news, video and audio production initiatives, as well as the IMC's progressive library and other programs. This is also free, happening Sat. April 21, 2001, from noon to 2:00pm at the Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center, 218 W. Main St., Downtown Urbana, IL. I'm coordinating this, so if you're in the area you can come on down and say "hi."
Grrrlfest 2001
This isn't exclusively about independent media, but there are workshops about media, poetry, writing, music, community radio production, in addition to art showings and benefit concerts. It's all about girls -- empowering girls to have a full-range of opportunities and skills available to them, and celebrating the things they do and make. Grrrlfest runs from April 20 through 29 at a whole variety of places thoughout Champaign-Urbana -- go to the website for more details. I think this is one of the most interesting and well-run programs in the area. I especially like and support it's goals of empowering girls to do whatever they want, throwing off stereotypical gender roles.
This one is global, but also local: the meeting for the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA)
The FTAA is a new trade treaty that intends to extend NAFTA-like free-trade to all of the Americas. Representatives from all the American countries, except Cuba, will be in Quebec City, Canada April 20-22 to negotiate this treaty. Although it threatens to impact the whole western hemisphere, little is actually know about the details of this treaty. Activists from all over the Americas plan to descend on Quebec City, where local officials plan to seal tightly shut to keep the activists far away. Independent journalists will be joining the ranks to provide grassroots street-level coverage--there will be a contingent of journalists from the Urbana-Champaign IMC going, too.
Live on-line radio coverage can be had at microradio.net, which will also be streaming a teach-in this coming weekend from 11am-7pm EDT. These programs are being picked up by unlicensed microbroadcasters and community radio stations around the country, so check out the website to see if there's one in your area. You will also be able to get constantly updated coverage at the Quebec Independent Media Center and the Global Indymedia sites.
For more on the FTAA check out www.a20.org.
posted 4/12/2001 03:49:01 PM [link
to this entry] [respond]
[top]
Tuesday, April 10, 2001
More on EMusic Buyout:
Wired News reports that Universal Vivendi's purchase of indie online music retailer EMusic is going through, however the independent artists and labels that licensed their music to Emusic aren't necessarily happy with this major label deal. My favorite quotes come from Jeff Price, president of SpinArt records: "One of the things that I've come to terms with, and I don't like it, is that the Internet is not a garden of democracy.... The Internet is a cartel.... The music industry is essentially controlled by five companies. If you want to get music out there you have to go through one of them."
posted 4/10/2001 02:02:47 PM [link
to this entry] [respond]
[top]
Thursday, April 05, 2001
bloggin' with a vengeance... Alexander Cockburn dedicates this week's post to his and Jeffrey St. Clair's political newsletter/webzine Counterpunch to observations on the sorry state of radio and glimmers of hope in the Pacifica struggle as he drives I-40. I've driven across the midwest and back to the East coast several times in the last few years and each time I'm struck at how barren the radioscape is. If it weren't for a few interesting college, public and community stations between here and there, it would be nothin' but Britney, Zeppelin, Shania, Rush (Limbaugh), Dr. Laura and Limp Bizkit. Now that's giving the consumer some damn choices!
posted 4/5/2001 07:51:49 PM [link
to this entry] [respond]
[top]
And then... mp3 buyout...
ZD Net reports that EMusic.com, a pioneer in selling mp3 music on the web--mostly indie-label stuff--is closing in on being bought out by a major label, reportedly Vivendi Universal. Apparently someone thinks there's money in them dar mp3 hills. Either that, or it's a buyout aimed at shutting up.
posted 4/5/2001 02:44:55 PM [link
to this entry] [respond]
[top]
And yet, Napster usage surges, despite lawsuits and filtering.
Still, don't think Napster's making any money. And, frankly, I like the filters, since I'm not interested in mainstream major label music the filters take out the spurious Metallica and Britney Spears hits from my searches.
The Times reports that folks overseas use Napster more than we in the US. Apparently Canada has the greatest usage, with 30% of home Internet users tapping Napster for music. Just one question: is Rush being filtered out?
posted 4/5/2001 12:19:26 PM [link
to this entry] [respond]
[top]
The End of Peer-to-Peer?
Today the Wall Street Journal declares that the "Peer-to-peer party comes to a halt." The article argues that peer-to-peer networking strategies--which link together users' computers on the net in a distributed manner, typically without a central server--are failing due to their inability to find funding or a profit model. Further dampening their future is the fact that the killer app for these products is primarily the trading of copyrighted material like music files and software, a la Napster (which is only sorta peer-to-peer, since it relies on a central server to pair up clients).
But I think the article misses the point, as should be expected from the Journal. Again we have the problem of success or failure being determined wholly based upon investment and profit potential. This point of view is entirely ignorant of the fact that technologies can be and are valuable beyond their profit potential. Peer-to-peer networking is important not just because it allows individuals to trade mp3s unfettered--although this has its advantages. It's important because it enhances the autonomy of each individual 'net user, giving her the freedom to move data around without having to rely on a central server/watchdog to give approvals and route traffic.
Perhaps it's more difficult to see this at the moment, since the 'net in the US is still rather freewheeling and resistent to censorship. However, in countries like China and in many Islamic states the government filters a lot of 'net traffic and keeps a firm grip on servers, which therefore keeps a firm grip on the info that can be easily distributed. Peer-to-peer reduces the role of the server, or, rather, it turns every computer on the 'net into a server, which makes keeping a firm grip on the data that gets moved around much harder.
In the "free" western world, peer-to-peer becomes a potentially powerful technology in the face of private censorship being wrought by the intellectual property oligarchs--the highly concentrated music/movie/book/magazine industry--that are attempting to control the channels of distribution and use of all digital content on the Internet. The technology is not just useful to distribute these companies' content outside their control, but to distribute your own content, or new content that the industry contends infringes on their copyrights (whether or not that contention is legally defensible), such as collage work or parody works that mock trademarked or copyrighted characters and themes.
Contrary to what the WSJ article implies, profit motive is actually weakens peer-to-peer technologies, since eeking out substantial revenue from it requires that the technology somehow be controlled or centralized. This is exactly why Napster is so vulnerable to being shut down right now. Napster hopes to make money from it's file-sharing technology, and must control and route the traffic in order to do so. Yet this centralized control is what opens up the company to the lawsuits it's currently experiencing.
Other decentralized technologies like Gnutella are less vulnerable to such persecution since the network stays alive as long as more than 1 computer on the 'net runs the software. Although Gnutella has its own technological problems--like the fact that the protocol doesn't appear to scale well, with the network becomming bogged down when more than a couple of thousand users are on the network--it's very hard to shut down so long as the software is out there somewhere. Still, unlike Napster, Gnutella and similar peer-to-peer networkings strategies are less user friendly, less plug and play, requiring a little geek knowledge to get configured and working properly. It's not unlike the Windows vs. Linux battle, where the geek-quotient holds back casual users from installing Linux. But this problem can be overcome as the technology matures and shouldn't be considered insurmountable.
It's a point that I find myself constantly repeating, but yet seems as though it can't be repeated often enough: the inability to exploit a technology, technique or idea for instantaneous profit does not mean failure of that method. Or rather one can put it this way: profit means more than immediate financial gain. Freedom, democratic control, even happiness and fulfillment are also ways to profit. And, yet, maybe someone might be able to make a living using peer-to-peer technology--but does that person have to make millions upon millions to be considered a success?
Being independent means defining your own standard of success.
posted 4/5/2001 11:42:29 AM [link
to this entry] [respond]
[top]
Wednesday, April 04, 2001
Broadcasters Extorting the Political Process
The American Prospect this month features an article called "Cornering the Airwaves," that details the rich bounty that television broadcasters reap from political campaigns through their ad dollars. Author Paul Taylor points out the election season price gouging that goes on, despite federal laws prohibiting such practices. The key to circumventing these laws is soft money advertising--those ads that aren't run by the candidates and their parties themselves--which raise the bidding for all guaranteed commercial airtime, therefore also brining up the lowest average cost that stations charge, and which federal candidates are supposed to pay. Taylor also takes note of the correlation between the immense gains in ad revenue from political advertising and the decrease in substantial election news coverage.
Clearly, this demonstrates that the basic problem with a profit-driven media that is also supposed to stand as the fourth estate defenders of the public sphere and democratic information distribution. Yet, with the onslaught of political advertising, the commercial media, especially television, end up profiting by performing exactly the opposite function. Profit lies in being the unexamining propaganda prostitute of the very politicians that the press, as the fourth estate, is supposed to be on guard against--hence its priviledged status as a constitutionally protected enterprise. Why do you think that mass media advertising profits are never discussed in mainstream media coverage of campaign finance reform?
Of course, this is why the commercial mainstream media likes to have some public media around, to take that "public service" burden off their backs. Which works until Congress attacks federal spending on public media--like the Gringrich-led House did in 1995--forcing public TV and radio to take on more commercial-like methods of fundraising and air more underwriting spots that look and sound increasingly like commercials. Those methods carry a price, which means cowtowing to the same forces that impinge on the commercial media.
Indpendent Media is here and growing to fill this void. But the question remains -- how to fund it and make it as accessible and known as the dominant mainstream media?
posted 4/4/2001 04:42:43 PM [link
to this entry] [respond]
[top]
Ah, having a crappy whole-body cold does put a damper on my web site updates. But now I'm better, so I won't whine and I'll start blogging away again.
posted 4/4/2001 04:20:33 PM [link
to this entry] [respond]
[top]
Click
here for news archives...
|
|
