As a point of information, the comments were not turned off for any section. The reason you couldn't post to Spud's "commentary" is that it was posted as a razorwire, not as a feature or article. Razorwires are intended as short-term breaking-news sources. As you can see, the razorwire has been taken down, since it's no longer breaking news. I would encourage you to post comments on the election in the local newswire section.

Laura...it would have been easy for Spud to have done that.

I know that I can push things on the Newswire. However, I no ability to put things up in the Features section.

In the immediate intermath of the second stolen election and for two days afterwards everyone who visited IMC could only look at Spud's pitiful "4 More Years" message. No one could respond or say anything. (It looked to me like a similiar Coup had taken place on Balto IMC as with Washington DC.)

What an opportunity lost to connect with so many people who are desperate for an outlet to express what they know and feel.

Baltimore IMC is all about Gatekeeping; i.e., keeping other activists down.

Sheesh. The IMC is so not about keeping other activists down. If that were really the case, you wouldn't have this commentary, and we wouldn't be having this exchange.

Election information was posted to the Razorwire -- which has no commenting facility, so no, it would not "have been easy" -- in a purely informative capacity. None of the editors had time to write lengthy, insightful commentary during the election result counting, and it seemed better to have some purely factual information about the results than to have nothing at all.

There's a whole newswire for you to vent your own frustrations (case in point), so the idea that "no one could respond or say anything" is ludicrous. Just because you can't modify/comment on every single component of the IMC site doesn't make us oppressive...geez. Gatekeeper, schmatekeeper.

"None of the editors had time to write lengthy, insightful commentary during the election result counting, and it seemed better to have some purely factual information about the results than to have nothing at all."

Excuse me? Are you saying that only an editor could have any kind of commentary appearing at the top part of the features section after a second election was stolen? Who annointed you this level of control during such an important time?

G-a-t-e-k-e-e-p-e-r.

Yes, the editorial collective is responsible for selecting the center column content -- whether it be produced by the editors, or just a really good article from the newswire (which may always be considered for the Features column). That's what makes this the Baltimore IMC, rather than "Scott the news junky's blog".

Your notion of "gatekeeping" seems to include any form of editorial administration. If that's the case, I can live with being a gatekeeper.

E-D-I-T-O-R. Duh.

"Yes, the editorial collective is responsible for selecting the center column content..."

Check out what Cleveland is doing:
cleveland.indymedia.org/

At the top of the features section is commentary from people who presumably are not part of Cleveland's "editorial collective". Every article has a comments section.

Meanwhile, you refused to have any comments section that referred to your lame and indoctrinated viewpoints confirming the authenticity of the Tuesday "election". After keeping only your words there you took down the feature. The King had spoken and it was time for everyone to move on.

Spud, what you have done is comparable to the coup d'etat that took place in Washington DC. From Tuesday on no information has been allowed to appear on the features section of Baltimore IMC that disputes key elements of the Bush Dictatorship's propaganda. We're in an emergency situation in my view. Still, Spud the Bush Man, representing the Baltimore IMC Bush Collective, has deemed that only the official propaganda of the state can appear there.

Again, I ask what gives you the authority to claim that the "Baltimore Collective" has any fricking right to restrict the features section to only Bush Dictatorship propaganda? You DO NOT OWN INDYMEDIA. You are not George Soros. This is a PUBLIC RESOURCE.

The Coup in Washington can expect no better friends than you and the rest of the Gatekeepers at this IMC.

Hmm, Cleveland Indymedia, as of 2pm Nov. 7, seems to have at the top of the feature section a "summary feature" linking to newswire articles about Nov. 3rd demonstrations. At the head of the summary feature, is a slogan that, presumably, was used during the demonstration: "O-H-I-O, Suppressed democracy has got to go!" This is not an example of "commentary," it's an example of providing an enticing excerpt from a linked article.

The next feature on the Cleveland page is a brief item with this text: "November 2 Election Day
election information and coverage" with a link to an "election coverage" page, which in turn provided links to newswire articles and non-Cleveland IMC articles that exposed irregularities and fraud in the election.

Scott, where is the commentary at the top of the Cleveland IMC features section?

Further, comments are allowed on every article and feature on the Baltimore IMC site. Once again, what Spud posted was not an article or a feature, but merely a brief "razorwire" intended to give time-sensitive factual information. It was taken down not due to criticism, but because _all_ razorwires are taken down after the information ceases to be time-sensitive. Anyone who wanted to comment on the election was free to post a newswire article or to comment to one of the feature articles.

"Scott, where is the commentary at the top of the Cleveland IMC features section?"
cleveland.indymedia.org/

I was referring to the fact that photos and report back from Adam appears on the front page. (In other words, another point of view besides the Dictatorship and those who support it.) Click on the Speak Out link above and you have a press release and comments about the PR. Everything pretty much has comments.

It isn't like Spud using IMC to broadcast his propaganda and preventing anyone else from commenting on it.

"Further, comments are allowed on every article and feature on the Baltimore IMC site."

Except Spud's in the aftermath of a stolen election. Start from post #1.

"Once again, what Spud posted was not an article or a feature, but merely a brief 'razorwire' intended to give time-sensitive factual information. It was taken down not due to criticism, but because _all_ razorwires are taken down after the information ceases to be time-sensitive. Anyone who wanted to comment on the election was free to post a newswire article or to comment to one of the feature articles."

Laura, you're simply not following this discussion. In post #3 I say that I know I can push stuff up on the Newswire.

However, something more insidious is happening at IMC with Spud's eager participation. The Features section has been completely off limits to anyone who disputes the Dictatorship's propaganda about what happened on 11/2/04. This is the Coup that the editorial committee here is executing. Suddenly you've become Thought Police on behalf of authoritarianism.

Main page. What has been featured? "Post-Election Reflections" by Cliff DuRand. This article:

1. Reinforces the legitimacy of the "election".
2. Confirms the legitimacy of the Osama bin Laden tape.
3. In #2, implies that the Bush Dictatorship's propaganda about OBL is correct.

So...where's the counterpart to this propaganda? It isn't being featured.

btw, here's a commentary about the stolen election BEFORE it happened:
baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/8547

Show me where anyone else predicted that Kerry was imitating Gore and that the election would be stolen. Tell me also that this article would produce less of a response than DuRand's.

btw, here's my action alert about Amy Goodman:
baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/8624

It pleads for activists to request that she interview someone ASAP. Why the Hell wouldn't this be featured? Does it have less significance than hearing from the Balto Greens one final time?
baltimore.indymedia.org/feature/display/8538/index.php

Who has a more relevant audience to the anti-war crowd? Amy Goodman or the Baltimore Greens?

No, the problem is that I am directly challenging the propaganda of the State. The Baltimore IMC "collective" currently is refusing to feature anything that disputes the State, while consistently featuring material which reinforces it.

Gatekeeping like this is a complete betrayal of the promise of IMC.