[ssf] Re: [imc-sheffield] Sheffield Radical Newsletter fingy
r7 at aktivix.org
Fri Feb 4 00:50:53 GMT 2005
> At the SSF meeting on the 17th, I hope to make a start on this radical
> newsletter thingy. Just get something started.
some general thoughts and then some specifics. these are from an indymedia
perspective and has no real bearing on how the social forum should interact
with these ideas. i have, as a courtesy copied [ssf] in this email.
any one who has read this list for any length of time will know that we
periodically whinge about not having enough material on the website and more
specifically folks who are willing to write features. dan certainly recognizes
this and has, to his credit, tried some things to try and improve this
situation [notably the writers workshops]. i would ask you to bear in mind this
fact while thinking about dan's ideas below.
> Target date for first edition: either end of March or just after the
> lantern festival so's we can have a story and piccie of that on the
> front to begin with. (Maybe end of March, with piccies from previous
> lantern carnival, promoting the next...)
might be a bit previous my friend. we need to discuss more.
> But a little bit of planning is needed! After having looked at some
> other ones around the globe (IMC ones mainly...), here's some thoughts.
what similarities/differences to each other did you notice dan? and perhaps more
tellingly what similarities/differences between them and the project you
> I intend to run hardcopy / writing etc workshops on the 2nd and 4th
> Thursdays of the month.
writers workshops are cool [though don't need the experience myself]. a way of
encouraging writing for indymedia is ok by me.
> 1. Ideally I'd personally like this to be a joint IMC / SSF project.
> Why? To tie in a political and cultural events listing, writing,
> teach-ins and locally led research etc into one hardcopy a month. Also
> because, collectively and co-operatively, maybe we'll get some dosh
> coming in to both through this project. There's probably some problems
> with this - what are they?
erm... what is this money? this is not explicitly stated. the two that occur to
me from a print publication point of view are: advertising revenue and revenue
> 2. All labour voluntary? All funds raised cover printing costs etc.
> only? I don't think this is a hard and fast rule - my personal aim is
> to get something of Sandman size once a month, and voluntary work may
> not achieve this. This is where we need to work out whether it could be
> a separate entity, not-for-profit, which put it's surplus as per No.3
> below - but let's wait and see how things go. (E.g. it may just be
> another one of my hare-brained e-mail rants that never comes to anything!)
question: how many person hours does it take to produce sandman? does
imc-sheffield [or ssf for that matter] have that many person hours surplus to
requirements to put into a project that isn't it's primary function. if we did
have them [which i see no evidence of], wouldn't they be better spent on
producing media for our website?
> 3. Any money above and beyond costs covered goes to Sheffield IMC and
> SSF on a 50/50 basis. (You never know, there might be some profit!)
> 4. We can get not only ad revenue
i would be *really* unhappy about having imc's name on any publication that had
advertising in it. i mean *really* *really* unhappy. i have not seen a single
piece of media [web, audio, video, radio or print] that has accepted
advertising. do i need to explain why?
> 5. It adheres to the recently amended IMC guidelines (see below)
and where did the editorial guideline about advertising go? we hide this stuff
on the website [our primary function], but it should help provide us with
income with our print publication? anyone see a glimmer of inconsistency here.
> 6. Ties in to the online version of IMC Sheffield - e.g. 'go to the
> online story to add comments. Next month we'll digest the best...'.
we need more content on the site, but i think that we do that by encouraging and
enabling people to use the site.
> Previously, I think I'd be for changing 'anti-capitalist' to social
> justice, just for the purposes of the hard copy, and only because of
> common misconceptions.
i have not a clue where this comes from. from the imc-uk mission statement:
"Inherent in the mainstream corporate media is a strong bias towards
Capitalism's power structures, and it is an important tool in propagating these
structures around the globe. While the mainstream media conceal their manifold
biases and alignments, we clearly state our position. Indymedia UK does not
attempt to take an objective and impartial standpoint: Indymedia UK clearly
states its subjectivity."
that sounds anti-capitalist to me.
> But perhaps the alternative to this is to start the first one
> with some points of view on what anti-capitalist means - e.g. 'well, we make
> a profit, but it goes into the community! And then there are others who say
> we should trash the money system altogether...'
a good analysis for the newswire piece perhaps.
i could go on [and may have to write more perhaps], but my basic position is
do i want to see imc-sheffield involved in a print publication? yes.
do i think this is the way to do it? no.
is the way perhaps to foster links and provide mutual support with other imcs,
perhaps in the form of a collaborative "offline for the north" that we work on
with leeds/bradford, manchester and liverpool imcs? might be an idea worth
dan's ideas [though i disagree with much of what he's written] are useful in
helping develop what we want to do as an imc. thanks for the input [though less
of the benevolent dictator/school teacher stuff if you don't mind -- or i may
have to come round and give you a slap with a wet fish :-)]
r7 [at] aktivix [dot] org
More information about the ssf