dhalleck on Mon, 3 Dec 2001 21:56:32 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> Interview on 2 year anniversary imc --DeeDee Halleck |
Interview with DeeDee Halleck by Jakob Weingartner How would you describe the strategy of indymedia? The Seattle Indymedia site was inaugurated as part of setting up an Independent Media Center so that all of the many movement media comng to Seattle could collaborate. There was a growing realization that radio, video, print and art groups could effectively work together on specific issues. Before Seattle, there was the case of the impending execution of independent radio journalist Mumia Abu Jamal. Although there was no physical center, nor a coordinating web site, a national meeting of alterntive media folk made a committment to try to collaborate a campaign. In the space of very few weeks many of us worked collaboratively to make a media blitz to counter the State of Pennsylvania’s assigned date for execution: radio programs, videos, satellite broadcasts, special print inserts, posters and a CD Rom were made with, for the first time, a real sense of collaboration between different media. Throughout the country there were continual messages against the death penalty and in favor of a new trial for Mumia. For the moment, it worked, and the state postponed the execution. (Though Mumia is still in jail and may still be executed.) With the convergence of many groups to Seattle in 1999, we knew that the sort of campaign that had been waged to save Mumia might be an effective way to get the message of the anti-corporate movement before the public. So we planned to do a similar sort of cross media collaboration. The web site was just to be a place where we could post our work. Before Seattle happened, I don’t think anyone really imagined that the web site would be such a popular and effective tool. Sure, many groups have web sites, but the dynamism of the Seattle site was phenomenal. This was to a great extent due to the unique potential of the Catalytst soft ware, which made it easy for everyone to post not only text, but photos, video and audio files. Catalyst was developed in Australia by Mathew Arnison and others for use by Australian activists. Mathew just happened to be in Boulder shortly before Seattle and was able to introduce Manseur Jacobi and other tech people to the Catalyst code. The strategy per se was just to make it as accessible as possible, not only for downloading, but also for uploading. I think that only after the site went up and became so effective that we began to really understand what a powerful tool it was. Does indymedia want to put pressure on the mainstream media in order to force them to alter their news coverage? Or do you follow a concept of, let´s call it „counter-information“? If that´s so, do you see the danger of addressing an inner circle of already leftist people? There is a constant struggle within indymedia as to what the attitude should be towards the main stream media. There are those who think that indymedia can pressure corporate press to be more honest. I think that yes there have been stories that we “broke“ and forced main stream media to take notice and report. There are those who think we should court the press and get them to „cover“ indymedia and that „legitimates“ us. I pretty much disagree and I guess I am in the camp that says fuck the corporate media, let’s make our own! The distrust of mainstream media has been codified in one version of the "IMC Blueprint" with the following rules: "Try to get mainstream media to schedule times to come to the IMC so it is possible to let everyone know they were are coming. If possible, we try to clear a the scheduled mainstream media visit through a general meeting. 2. All mainstream media doing articles on the IMC should register as mainstream media - it is even possible to give them special passes to wear while they are in the IMC. 3. Someone from the outreach team can accompany mainstream media at all times when they are in the IMC". Sometimes IMC activities do catch the interest of the press and greatly increase the number of visitors to the web site. As related by "J.M.G." in a process discussion: Creative applications of the Internet technology during the S11 protests demonstrated the ability of the Net to not only function as an organizational tool but also as a form of civil disobedience in cyberspace. The tongue-in-cheek link to JohnFarnham's 'You're the Voice' - chosen as the S11 song - and the clever 'hactivism' which redirected users from www.nike.com to www.S11.org, generated considerable discussion within the press, radio and television media. This publicity alerted new audiences to the existence of the site incrementally increasing the number of hits the site received. The old media was important in publicizing and drawing attention to the new, highlighting the fact that, although the Net is an important new tool, activists still largely rely on coverage in the traditional media and cannot rely solely upon the emerging communications networks." Main stream critics have snidely put down the indy media activity as being contradictory: using corporate tools such as the internet to attack corporate agenda. Indymedia makers have countered that that is a time honored guerrilla tactic-- to turn the tools of the oppressors against them. However, a more considered rejoinder is that the internet was developed in a collaborative process through public funding via educational institutions. The creation did not spring from a search for profitable products to market. The entire effort was subsidized by public grants and nurtured in an atmosphere of mutual cooperation, not unlike the process of indymedia itself. The early internet researchers were not initially making products that the commercial sector could (and would) develop. As e-commerce takes over much of the band width, it is efforts such as indy media that are preserving the authentic interactive potential of the internet and, as such, preserving its role as a progressive public resource. As to the question of preaching to the choir.. well, first of all the choir needs information and „to be preached to“, otherwise how can we all sing together? But with the sorts of numbers indymedia is generating in terms of daily visitors, we are certainly going beyond any concept of „inner circle“. This is a broad audience. But moreover it is not passive: there are almost as many posts as there are visiters. Indymedia recently celebrated its 2 years of existence. If you look back at the development of the antiglobalisation-movement and the implementation of independent media in it, which goals have been reached, where have you failed? What has changed? Certainly we have changed the perception of the public in terms of global trade organizations. No one looks at the WTO or the World Bank as being a benevelent organizations any more. That is clearly a huge victory. In terms of failure, I think the biggest problems are the same problems we see in the world around us: the vast inequities in access to resources, the deeply rooted problems of racism and sexism and the ever present temptations of consumer culture. There are few indymedia centers in the South. Women and people of color are still in very much the minority at indymedia centers and many of the creative young people who have learned to make media at indymedia are sucked off into the corporate world so that they can pay off their credit cards. How has the strategy of indymedia changed through this 2 years? (Perhaps you would like to answer this question chronologically, starting with seattle, over washington, prague, genua etc.) I don;’t see „change“ per say, but just a sort of evolution and growth, which varies depending on the location and the persons involved. One exaample of a particularly active group is dcimc, which is making a 24 hour radio station, a tv channel that scans all the other imcs and posts a sort of roving video string. Also DC has perfected the use of the imc archives as counter surveilence: checking for images of police undercover provacateurs, recording police abuses (such as taping over their badge numbers with black tape and excessive violence) and other sort of vigilant activity. Genoa was amazing in the production of breaking news. It was a global interactive event. how have the wtc/pentagon bombings changed the work of indymedia? It is hard to say what the ultimate outcome will be. The images of black bloc kids at globalization protests seem curiously out of place in the current image climate. But the imcs have been very useful in providing an alternative to the jingoism of corporate press. Certainly the New York IMC has played a very useful role in uniting the community of media makers and artists in the WTC area.. Is the imc being exposed to a lot of hate in this heated up situation since it so openly opposes the „war against terror“ lead primarily by the us-government? There have been individual indymedia people attacked, but nothing so far, in terms of specific repression. I would say that the danger is more of intimidation: with Ashcroft’s draconian laws in effect, one wonders where the sword will fall. An interesting aspect to the new legislation is that anyone attacking property or threatening US business interests is in the same catagory as airplane hi-jackers. The ongoing or even concluded process in which the media-output is being mainstreamed as far as the war in afghanistan and it´s propagandistic counterpart in the usa is concerned is quite terrifying. What has to be done in order to deconstruct the hegemonic, and if you want to go that far, imperialistic discourse dominated by the us-government from your point of view? Which role should the independent media play in the anti-war movement? It is very important that the independent media make cogent criticism of the corporate media. Just as the WTO struggle is a global one, the stuggle against corporate media needs to be made global: we need to have a global initiative to preserve the airwaves and bandwidth for free speech and creative expression. In 2003 thre will be a global media meeting in Geneva at the International Telecommunications Union. This should be the „Seattle“ of media: we need a convergence and a demonstration of the need to nurture local media initiatives and to save satellite slots for grass roots communitcation. The question is how can the grassroots use of information technology be cultivated in the "vast wasteland" of global commercial (and military) hegemony of technological resources? Perhaps it is time to look at the ITU and to reinsert the public into their agenda. The ITU was organized before the United Nations, as a global agency to assign radio frequencies to prevent interference between nations. It has the task of designating both global spectrum and satellite paths. Both of these resources are essential infrastructure for any communication project. At the current time, most of this supposedly global resource has been assigned to commercial entities and military users. With the collapse of the Eastern Block, the demise of the Non-Aligned Movement and the privatization of national telecommunications agencies, there is no organized resistance to the commercialization of the world telecommunications infrastructure. This is why the Murdochs and the MTVs of the world can have free access to their target "markets: we are in the bull's eye. An example of how communities can successfully "tax" corporations to reconfigure communication infrastructure is the public access movement in the United States. Begun in the early seventies, community groups and visionary city officials were able to extract from cable corporations provisions that ensure public access to cable channels and equipment. Although this movement has been ridiculed in the popular press in the US (a press for the most part owned by cable corporations!) it has flourished in many cities and provides a model for the rest of the world as to how excess communication profits can be directed into "affirmative action" for information equity. The local and regional models of collaboration and participation such as public access and the IMCs can be the foundation to design a global system of information resources that sees humanity not a markets to be exploited, but as participant citizens. Why not a global standard of participatory communication, asserting the public nature of global information resources, such as earth orbits and spectrum? The imc’s show the way. The imc started off as a project that´s tightly linked with the anti-globalisation movement. Edward Said recently visited vienna and in an interview doubted that the antiglobalisation-movement can be transformed into a „new peace movement“. What would you reply? If we can’’t do that we are in big trouble. The United States Patriot Act, which was passed by Congress last month, states that any act that could be deemed dangrous to human life, or forcing government officials to change their policies, can be construed as domestic terrorism. According to Michael Ratner, of the Center for Constitutional Rights, it is not a stretch to predict that this will be used against any future anti-globalization protests, or at the very least against the leaders. This law makes what in the past is civil disobedience into domestic terrorism, so that acts on which there were certain sentencing limits, and makes them much more serious. Under this law it means certain acts can be called terrorism and punishable with twenty years in jail. Even thowing a rock in a Starbucks window. If there is glass that breaks and could be construed as endangering human beings, that action can be tried under this act. There is also a part about blocking mass transit. So that demonstrators blocking a main thoroughfare or a train track could be arrested as terrorists. This directly targets Reclaim the Streets and Critical Mass. This law takes actions which in the past were not seen as major crimes and makes them punishable as domestic terror. There is finally a growing reaction to the militry tribunal idea. The reality is sinking in and actually the resisitance is from both the left and the right. Let’s see what happens in the next few months. Here in europe nothing is being heard about the american peace movement. Why? Perhaps because European media takes their cues for internal reporting of the us from what is reported on CNN. Of course thre is no recognition from CNN as to the peace movement. In the usa as well as in europe authorities are forcing the implementation of extensive surveillance over it´s citizens. The only solution is to resist. For one thing this stuff is very expensive. As the recession settles in, it is going to get harder for the gov to tax us for all this new equipment. How does the new peace movement adress this issue? On all fronts: vigils, actions, theater, art, and IMC posts! What I am doing is working on a daily news program with journalist Amy Goodman. We are doing two hours a day of news over satellite, community tv, public radio and the internet. www.democracynow.org # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net