INDYmedia isn't a credible source because they tell the 'Peoples Story' not the 'Governments'??

For ATS to be a Conspiracy website there are an awful lot of people here who bow to authority. Chang party lines and read Government doctrines verbatim as if they were the moral and ethical truths of the universe.

Just like school textbooks. Flawed and biased in every country of the world. Howard Zinn wrote, A Peoples History of the United States. Great Book.

Now when it comes to media sources people cry Indymedia is not credible. Main reason is because they say it's biased.

The government media is not biased? Hah!

The fact is that Indymedia is the peoples media and the corporate media is the governments mouthpiece.

We should start paying more attention to the peoples stories, not the governments. The peoples stories should be valued!

I take Indymedia with a grain of salt because they often support the perceived "little people" over the established "powers that be" even when there's no clear side in the right. They've got a lot of good stuff, but when they're off the mark it can be further from the truth than with more established news agencies.

This is, as I see it, a problem that stems not so much from their political bias[1] as it does from their relative newness in the field. Indymedia is trying to break into the mainstream, they're trying to make a name for themselves, and in doing so they must take more risks. Because of this, their failures, as well as their successes, are often more spectacular than the more conservative (in terms of risk-taking, not in political leaning) established news outlets.

Now, that's not to say that I accept stuff from, say, cnn.com at face value either. I take news from any site with a grain of salt, but the shape of that grain differs from site to site.

[1] Indymedia does tend do display a certain political bias, just as most major outlets do. Which way they lean varies, but slight bias is always present.

[edit on 3/16/2005 by Whiskey Jack]

I'm not really familiar with IndyMedia, but in general, anyone claiming to be the "people's" news is wrong. The people are quite varied and have different viewpoints. Certainly a liberal leaning hack news source claiming to be the people's news source wouldn't be this person's news source! I voted for George W. Bush and think he's one of the best Presidents we've ever had.

The Bush administration has spent over a quarter of a billion dollars in the last 4 years on PR and making VNR's. You see them all the time on the news but no one tells you they are VNR's, yu actually are left believing its real news reports, check it out here. And why on earth should indymedia have to give the governments side, you got all the major news outlets giving you that on a daily basis and practically nothing else.
www.democracynow.org.../03/14/152202

I agree that when WhiskyJack, when they are off the mark they are far from the mark. Like when they said that the US sent Tanks to a peace protest in LA. That was a mistake that they exploited and then quietly hused up by removing all content from most of their servers.

They are down in the pits of the anti-globalization movement where a lot of their work began - before the anti-war spat that most people assume is just unAmerican or Anarchistic.

Djohnsto77, that's quite right. I voted for Bush the first time, but that's a whole other story. I'd never be a Democrat. But being a conservative republican is getting to nauseating for me... Definately if they say it's the 'people's' media which they don't claim, it was my insinuation, but if they did we would definately have to question, "Which People?"

Goose. VNR's and their half-truths and falsehoods are nothing new but geting more and more twisted aren't they? It's good to have a Indymedia, but I just wish they had some competition to create a better standard for independent media to truly develop as an alternative to corporate/government news sources.

Thanks for your replies guys!

WhiskeyJack, Indymedia is not try to "break into the mainstream", or even to represent the people againt the authority for all I'm concerned. Working inside an activist-oriented community radio station that works closely with indymedia, and actaully knowing the folks that are in charge of the local indymedia "headquarters" in my town. Indymedia is nothing else than a collective of volunteer reporters, and an alternative news network. The big private (and government-sponsored) media have their own press agencies, so does the people now. This is not some media business trying to get mainstream and the only reason why it gets more exposed these days is because more people get involved into it or just read their news. And don,t ever try to convince me that FOX news is less partial and more reliable than a community news network like Indymedia. What comes out of things like FOXnews is what white middle-class or rich journalists and editors are PAID to pull out, while what comes out from Indymedia are usually things that come directly out of activists from the "field"... people that work or live inside the situation itself, and report about it.

The thing is that all medias always turn out to be biased. When they're not neglecting some aspects or details concering particular events, it's gonna be about presenting facts in some particular ways that people are gonna get a specific interpretation of it. They all have prejudices in the way they present the news. So if the mainstream media has an anti-muslim, anti-union, anti-activist and anti-feminist prejudice, then Indymedia will have an anti-State and anti-corporate prejudice. Alternative media only tries to balance the information that is being broadcast through the public, by presenting perspective that are willingly left behind by the mainstream media.

radio4all.net...

Originally posted by 00PS
Now when it comes to media sources people cry Indymedia is not credible. Main reason is because they say it's biased.

It is both at times... biased and not credible. While I lean in favor of their intent, they hurt themselves all too often.

Some months ago, a story ran about a protest in a U.S. city being broken up by U.S. military, with photos of armored vehicles and all. With a small amount of fact finding by more than one of our ATSNN staff, it was discovered that the "protest" was a relatively small one, made to look bigger by the angle of the photographs... and the "military" was a National Guard unit who was lost and looking for directions. We tended to follow the "lost" story since at no point in any photo was any of the National Guardsmen taking any notice of the protest.

We have far-left, far-right, and very little in the middle. The polarization is successful. The truth is hidden.

Originally posted by Echtelion
WhiskeyJack, Indymedia is not try to "break into the mainstream", or even to represent the people againt the authority for all I'm concerned.

Whoa, back of a bit here. I'm not denigrating Indymedia by saying it's trying to "break into the mainstream," rather I'm saying that it's stated goal is "to empower people to become the media by present honest, accurate, powerful independent reports."
Later on, in that same question from the Indymedia.org FAQ, they go on to say that some members are attempting to create national and international television and radio networks, which, IMNSHO, is a good thing.
This means, however, that they will need the support of more than just the radical left, they'll need mainstream support. To get this, they need to break in to the mainstream consciousness.

Working inside an activist-oriented community radio station that works closely with indymedia, and actaully knowing the folks that are in charge of the local indymedia "headquarters" in my town. Indymedia is nothing else than a collective of volunteer reporters, and an alternative news network.

Which is a valuable thing. However, unless it is the organizations overall goal to remain a marginal actor in terms of national and international policy, they will need the support of non-activists. They need to convince not just people like you to support them, but the huge group of politically moderate (and/or apathetic) folks that make up the bulk of the American populace.

This is not some media business trying to get mainstream and the only reason why it gets more exposed these days is because more people get involved into it or just read their news.

Hrm, it seems the term "mainstream" is an insult to you. I did not intend it to be so. Unfortunately, I'm not coming up with any synonims that don't carry some political stigma. "Trying to win greater mind-share" seems too...well, too much like meaningless corporate speak. "Actualizing an American and International political conscience through promotion of under-reported news" is a bit better, but still uses some of the big-money words that have been rendered meaningless. To me "breaking in to the mainstream" means not that Indymedia is trying to sell-out and make a quick buck, but that they're trying to increase their power, and thus their ability to empower the people they're trying to represent. If they cannot do this, Indymedia will be marginalized and effectless.

And don,t ever try to convince me that FOX news is less partial and more reliable than a community news network like Indymedia.

[Fox News rant delted, mostly]

Whoa, hold up again. How did you go from me saying "Indymedia is trying to break into the mainstream", to reading "Indymedia suxorz!!!11oneone U shuld watch FoxNews, it Roxxorz my Boxerz!!!1!!oneone"?

First, I don't have cable. I have never seen the Fox news channel.

Second, from what I've heard of it, I don't like it. It not only takes a particular political bias, but it attempts to deny that it has such a bias. The first, to me, is acceptable, the second is lying and, therefore, not.

Now, can we calm down a bit?

Indymedia is heavily biased by liberal views. Corporate media is heavily biased by the views of the government of whatever country they're in (usually neo-conservative or left-libertarian in western countries). Neither comes close to being objective, and both tend to ignore the big picture : the NWO and its deception, lies and power hunger.

In my personal evaluation of the news media in the USA one constant fact is quite obvious that important information is controlled or whenever possible omitted, if by chance it is an event that is glaringly obvious such a natural disaster or the like then corporate interests assess the situation as a chance to hyke cost and pass them on to the consumer as in oil or insurance or building materials ect. Then the washingbeltway elite look at the situation and see if any political currency can be garnered from the event or if any of the current administration's agendas can be furthered by weighing in with their take on it.
Now whenever a politically embarrassing news event gets leaked to the few journalist that have the guts to speak out. The news suddenlly get's a scandal like Michael Jackon , some other sensational tabloid event usually envolving sordid sex or murder or obductions which will occupy peoples attentions while the real news is quietly circumvented and damage control is instituted as in the Plame case.
Governments and corporations micromanage and sanative the news for the dummed down populations of sheeple just trying to keep their heads above water. I am with you goose let's hear the people for once we have been left in the dark for too long some active dialoge might wake a few of us up. Pantheria

Indymedia is simply a place where anyone can have their say! I have friends who started it! The people, on the other hand, who are most intent on expressing their views are not necessarily representational of the general public.

It is also true that no organisation, especially with political investment, is free from ideological influence! Here with Indymedia, there seems to be a strong reaction against money based media which definitely gives them a "biased" opinion. I think this is just a nutural thing! Because they are one of only few non big business media orgs, they indentify themselves as the exact opposite!

I think we should still be supportive since it is only through support of numbers that orgs like Indymedia can properly stand on their own and have a chance, again through weight of numbers, to aspire to be representational and thus honestly claim to offer some truth!

They are almost an ATS in the political arena. It would be impossible for them to claim to have no political interest simply because the media IS ( although it perhaps shouldn't be) political!

One other reason why they represent the "little people" is that it is precisely the "little people" who can provide the info!

If you take Indymedia together with other big media corps and combine the stories you will come out with a better idea of the truth even if it is far from complete! I think it is a valuable entity for our society!

Originally posted by Kupios
Indymedia is simply a place where anyone can have their say!

Only when you're a left wing dissident of some sort. Otherwise you're censored.

Oh...! Are you sure about that? If you really are then I must accept my ignorance! But thanks to you IllusionS667 I can now Deny Ignorance!!

Thank you!!

Originally posted by Kupios
Oh...! Are you sure about that?

Yes, I'm sure. I was censored myself on Indymedia, because -- though dissident -- my beliefs are predominantly right wing.

Originally posted by IlluSionS667

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.

Originally posted by intrepid

What's so funny?

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by IlluSionS667

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.

^
^
^
^
Censored, get it?

With a small amount of fact finding by more than one of our ATSNN staff, it was discovered that the "protest" was a relatively small one, made to look bigger by the angle of the photographs... and the "military" was a National Guard unit who was lost and looking for directions.

Kind of like the major press organizations did at the toppling of the Saddam statue, hehe.... Still, they sometimes leap to the sensational angle before getting their facts straight....

Censored, get it?