[Oceania-video] fwd from anna

[Heidi Douglas]

Ello Anna and other video geekerzs
thanks for your reply
i am snowwwwed under right now so havent got much time to discuss it.
sorry
will try to next week
have lost the address where to send stuff to??
x heidi

On 22/06/2005, at 12:30 AM, and wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oceania-video mailing list
> Oceania-video at lists.cat.org.au
> http://lists.cat.org.au/cgi-bin/m/listinfo/oceania-video
>
>

  Heidi Douglas
  AV Producer
  The Wilderness Society
  heidi.douglas at wilderness.org.au
  ph 03 6224 9122
  fax 03 6223 5112
  130 Davey Street, Hobart
  7000 Tasmania
  www.wilderness.org.au