[Oceania-video] fwd from anna

[and]

didn't seem to be going through to the list for some reason so am  
forwarding this through from anna.
and.

---------------------------- Original Message  
----------------------------
Subject: Re: [Oceania-video] Bumped into Newsreal2
From:    anna at sagaponic.net
Date:    Mon, June 20, 2005 5:54 am
To:      oceania-video at lists.cat.org.au
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
--

hey all,

what an exciting flurry of emails. a new video available and a crazy new
distro technique! happiness. i've been daydreaming about poster-dropping
escapades recently, so its nice to know its happening for real, with the
'real! might even push me over the edge into reality myself.. :)

thanx for letting us know about the vid heidi. please send it in! i know
the debate about the last tws piece in the newsreal could have been a
little hurtful to you, especially as you are so involved in these
campaigns and really want to see the message getting out there.

the thing is, it actually did go in last time, despite there being a
debate about it, that was the end result. i feel you may have been
offended by the debate, and though this is out of my hands i'm  
personally
sorry if you were at all.

for this next piece i think that obviously it depends as much what is in
your new piece and how well it fits in with the compilation just as much
as any other piece. we are thinking of making an SVCD this time, so that
means we can only fit on about 40minutes of video. but this isn't the
question you asked.

you're right, the issue was unresolved. i suppose everyone on this list
will have a slightly different opinion about it. i can only speak about  
my
own. which is:

if the piece is primarily discussing the campaign itself (which i feel  
the
last one was - though it was more broadly about logging of old growth
forests in tasmania rather than about a specific location/campaign), and
doesn't lock down potential action about it to one end alone through the
promotion of a particular group (here the wilderness society) to the
exclusion of all others then i think its okay. "okay" meaning it has
passed an ethical standard, but also totally of great value in other
aspects! for example - the positive feedback we got from the
secondary-school teacher about the classes response to this piece, which
they really liked, and liked the john butler soundtrack too.

it would be great if we could narrow the debate about this to simply  
"the
promotion of certain groups in newsreal content" rather than a debate
about NGOs and the wilderness society specifically. there is certainly a
time and place for those debates, but i personally feel that is not
necessary here.

as far as i understand it the last piece was totally "neutral" in this
ethical judgement about preferentially promoting activist groups until  
the
last few frames when it came up with a TWS logo. thus the "worst" (in
terms of this ethical debate) judgement i heard of the piece that it was
like "an ad for the wilderness society". i imagine that even internally
within TWS this piece could have been considered an appropriate use of  
the
piece, in fact it is totally appropriate for TWS to be advertising and
promoting its potential to enact positive action in this manner!

its not like it was seen as a "bad thing" as far as i can see it, it was
only ever a matter of how appropriate it was for the newsreal to be
promoting a specific group, considering the "independent" nature of
indymedia.

this constant defining of "independent" is a problematic that could be
better answered by somebody more fully involved in indymedia networks  
than
myself, though obviously there is never going to be an "authority" on  
the
subject!

if it was easy for you to more subtly present TWS as an option for  
action,
as oppposed to "the" option for action, could this solve our ethical
question in this instance? am i being too simplistic, or is this a  
simple
answer that might work within a complex question?

the other option is to merely present the situation that is demanding
action, without offering any group or campaign as a solution. this is
easily done in the edit suite, but it's up to you as the producer what  
you
want to do. i definitely feel i want to encourage people to spring into
action moments after watching a piece, personally - this is just one of
the reasons this approach has problems too.

could this be an opportunity to express yourself in a more "independent"
fashion that working at TWS currently allows? i imagine many of your
points of view coincide with those of TWS as an organisation, but i
imagine that some do not.

we were discussing some of these issues about "advocacy film-making vs.
objectivity vs. propaganda vs. media training rather than outside media
production" at the last Transmission conference at the oceania indymedia
meeting last year. it was really interesting and i would love to debate
these things more. we are holding a monthly discussion and documentary
watching group here in melbourne to help us all work out these issues  
for
ourselves too.

perhaps one of the most ethical method of documentary production is the
"media training so people can tell their own stories" model, but i don't
think trees are that interested in learning how to use video cameras!

what are your thoughts about this? how do you feel the promotion of  
groups
could possibly conflict with ideas of "independence" in indymedia
projects, if at all? or do you see the debate differently? do you need
more info on indymedia definitions of these areas - i personally could  
do
with going over it for this circumstance.

the most relevant point on the oceania indymedia site - in the statement
of common ground - seems to be this:
# An organizational philosophy based on decentralization, horizontal
decision-making, autonomy and the will to coordinate.
this seems to be the most explicit reference to the concept of
"independence".

this is from the FAQ on docs.indymedia.org about indymedia in general:

>>>
Of what are you "independent?"

No corporation owns Indymedia, no government manages the organization,  
no
single donor finances the project. Indymedia is not the mouthpiece of  
any
political party or organization. People involved with Indymedia have a
wide variety of political and personal viewpoints. Anyone may  
participate
in Indymedia organizing and anyone may post to the Indymedia newswires.
Political parties or organizations may choose to publish articles on the
Indymedia newswires, but in doing so they invite public debate about  
their
positions from any reader of the site; any reader may respond by
publishing his/her comments alongside the post in question. True, many
Indymedia organizers and people who post to the sites have political
opinions that fall along the left side of the political spectrum, yet  
each
individual chooses his/her own level of involvement; there's nothing in
any Indymedia mission statement that declares people who are involved  
must
be of any particular mindset, as long as they do not work contrary to  
the
values espoused in Indymedia's mission statement.
>>>

one of the problems is that the newsreal isn't an open-publishing system
exactly, it is compiled by an editorial team here in melbourne. we have
only ever rejected pieces due to 1. there not being enough space and 2.
quality of production, not on ethical/political grounds, so we haven't  
had
to deal with these issues as much as perhaps we should have. your last
piece was one  of the few that had any such issues attached to them at
all, and it still wasn't rejected - therefore the "open publishing" idea
has not really been challenged except for the value judgement of  
"quality"
which was made as objectively as possible, but still means it isn't
perfect.

so its just really complex isn't it. i saw your last piece as falling  
into
the "acceptable" slot in terms of all of this, and i guess enough of us
did whilst compiling so it went in. so i'm hoping that the next piece  
will
turn up and also fit into this slot for enough of us, and we won't reach
any kind of stalemate, but we can use this as an opportunity to debate
these issues respectfully to our collective knowledge and advantage.

perhaps this is the time to devise a better decision-making process for
inclusion of pieces in the newsreal!

could we start using this list as a "newsreal features" email organising
list more actively than we are at present? more people participating in
the sourcing of video material will really help get another edition out
sooner.

andrew and i are busily working on getting a site for web video distro
going, and are neglecting the newsreal a bit. for others to step in via
the list would be really appreciated, and would have the double benefit  
of
opening up this editorial process, which i think is really necessary.

howzat for a rant!
;)

anna