Someone e-mails to say that we've dumped Alexander Cockburn because he's questioning global warming talks/theories/whatever. She tells us that she has followed all sites and, community wide, we have backed off from Alexander Cockburn "the moment he got slammed. Everyone of you has refused to defend him."
Someone needs to check her facts. On May 27th, C.I. addressed the issue in "Alexander Cockburn & music." In the time since, CounterPunch has continued to be highlighted at The Common Ills. C.I. does not believe it got highlighted last week and that's because there was only article (a peace plan) that would have fit and there was no time to note it. Jim will back up the time issue since he was on the road with C.I. A piece that went up two Saturdays ago by Missy Comley Beattie almost made "And the war drags on . . ." two Sundays ago; however, it was difficult to pull an excerpt (Comley Beattie was addressing both the war and religion). The Common Ills' focus is Iraq.
Both Mike and Elaine did note CounterPunch last week, Mike with a piece by Marjorie Cohn ("Repression in Oaxaca") and Elaine with a piece by William S. Lind ("The Perfect (Sine) Wave") so when the e-mailer suggests that no community site noted CounterPunch last week, she is just wrong.
Those are the three sites that note CounterPunch regularly. They have continued to note it. They intend to continue. Frequently, Kat notes CounterPunch but she has largely been focusing on the issue of Bono lately. Rebecca sometimes notes it. In terms of noting and not noting, many running sites feel as Mike does that he no longer knows why he should even bother after an incident on Tuesday when those who frequently ask to be promoted by this community refused to give credit to this community. That has soured many on noting anyone.
It has been so damaging that Jim decided Thursday we would do a regular edition this weekend and not the fiction issue that many thought we were doing. Jim's feelings were that if we do not do a hard hitting look at various topics, it will be very hard for us to get "back into the saddle" at a later date.
That is because everyone, members doing sites and members not doing sites, are taxed by what happened last week. C.I.'s only statement on the issue for public consumption is: "I have no personal thoughts on the issue. Since Tuesday night, I have been dealing with an outraged and offended community. I have not had time to think about how I feel personally, I've just attempted to do what I normally do at The Common Ills and attempted to listen to the concerns of members." Other have shared their opinions in great deal. For Betty, this has resulted in a lost faith in independent media; for Mike the decision not to tax himself too much online (to save that for his columns in Polly's Brew) to avoid being ripped off; for Elaine, it has confirmed her feelings that independent media is all about independent media and will gladly take your money but is not representing you; for Kat, it brought up all the times C.I. has agreed to help get the word out on someone only to be slammed or stabbed in the back; for Rebecca, it's made her not even want to log in to her website. Cedric states that he is still furious and Wally gets very quiet when asked about the topic (a sure sign that Wally is seething).
Dona urged everyone to talk about what they were feeling when this went down Tuesday. That was a wise suggestion. Had people attempted to bottle it up, many community sites would have gone dark. Ty, Jess and Dona offer this statement: "When this community plugs or gives a shout out, we have done so expecting nothing in return. We haven't expected to be noted or get a shout out. But we certainly did not expect that when 'news' is being discussed, and C.I.'s work is not being credited when only C.I. covered the topic, users who have used this community wouldn't be such jerks that they would refuse to even say, 'The Common Ills has also covered this.' We've read a few e-mails forwarded by members who complained and received responses that they didn't even know of The Common Ills. That is a flat out lie. It was long ago noted that Jess saves every e-mail from the press, big or small, that comes into The Common Ills. Should these lies continue, we will be posting e-mails here to reveal that, despite the claims of never having heard of The Common Ills, some were actively seeking out mentions and citations from The Common Ills. Bad manners no longer surprise us after last week. Flat out lying does and we will not let the lies stand."
What everyone has wanted to know from the start is what C.I. thinks of this and C.I. has steadfastly refused to enter into the discussion. C.I. notes for this article, "Along with the outrage, the intense outrage, of members, the other issue I had to address last week was to what to include and what not to. What happened has outraged members and, obviously, I have included NPR in the snapshots last week for that reason. I am not going to rub salt in the still open wounds. In addition, I have had to consider whether a link or quote in the snapshot constituted too much independent media for one snapshot considering the community's feelings? With big media, the community's always known of the various trade offs and they don't expect anything given back to the community. With independent media, it is very different. The feeling is that it's one thing for me to note CBS News when I have so many friends there and it is quite another to note an independent organization. I understand that feeling and I understand the points members have been making. The snapshots will likely contain less and less independent media as a result of what has happened. It is felt that many have benefited from the attention and they have refused to give back. I now have a very small list I am working from of who can be noted and who cannot. Alexander Cockburn, to note the woman's e-mail, can be noted. Many others cannot. That has to do with both the feelings of members and with the fact that I simply do not have time to deal with e-mails from members on this topic. Whatever day the peace article ran at CounterPunch, it was going to be included. What happened was I attempted to write, as opposed to dictate, that snapshot and in the middle of doing that, while my laptop was plugged into an electric socket, we were suddenly in the midst of a blackout block wide. The electricity was out for two hours and I had already told both friends I usually dictate the snapshot to that I'd be doing it myself that day so not to worry about hanging around for a call. When we did have electricity again, I immediately did the quickest, briefest snapshot possible. But having said that, the reality is that if you look at any snapshot before last week, you will see over fifty links in each one. We certainly have not gotten any links resulting from the snapshot so anyone who's displeased about what does or does not go up at The Common Ills in the future should ask what they've given to a community passionately focused on ending the illegal war because not much has been given and it's really rude to expect people to knock themselves out for you when you do nothing for them."
And that last sentence sums up Mike's opinion on his site. He is currently compiling a list of what he will and what he will not note in the future. CounterPunch, as he's already announced at his site, will continue to be noted. But Mike's feelings are, "What's the point? You work on something and you work on it and then, on a radio program that has asked for support from this community, not only does C.I. not receive credit for the work done but another organization that hasn't even covered the issue, does get credit. You see that, or I see that happen, and my attitude is why bother? I said at my site, I'm happy to talk about music. I'm happy to plug music but I don't see the point in plugging outlets after seeing that even when addressing a topic that only C.I. covered in real time, those who have asked for help and assistance from this community refuse to even give a shout out. We've all had various technical problems last week, as we do any week, and, for instance, right now C.I.'s trying to figure out how to get Ruth's latest report, which posted Saturday night, to show up because it still does not show up. When you're dealing with that or something else and you've already seen a rip off take place, it's really easy to ask, 'What's the point?' I started out happy to give links and to use my time following this or that and it's fine that I get nothing in return. I don't think I've done anything so wonderful that someone needed to turn around and give me a shout out. But C.I. and only C.I. covered the Jane Perlez article when it was published on May 29th. None of the ones getting credit did. C.I. led last week's article here on the correction. C.I. was on this and calling it out. So, Tuesday night, to not hear earned credit being given out really soured me. The e-mailer may not know this, but it's a lot of work to do links. And there are all these technical problems that pop up all the time. Your computer freezes, you lose an entire post as you're writing it, all these things, and to spend the time required to post takes more than the time to write it -- and I type really slow. So that's a lot of my personal time being spent. Before I was doing my own blog, I was a Common Ills community member and, in fact, I started my site because C.I. got ripped off. It's happened repeatedly and I've always been angry by it. But I was shocked and angry Tuesday night and seriously considering going back into my old posts and removing various things that had been included because C.I. was asked to promote them."
Rebecca states, "No one here is speaking of FAIR in any format. We are not naming the ones we are speaking of. You can check our sites if you are confused and read our posts from last week. Naming them would be promoting them. All other sites sprung up around and after The Common Ills. C.I. has consistently been an advocate of small media at The Common Ills. No other website can be found that has linked to more independent media unless the website is nothing but a link-fest. C.I. may lead the way but we all have attempted to follow. While we were willing to be supportive, we were not and are not willing to be a door mat. Those who have used this community to promote programming, articles, speaking tours, books, etc. in small media have never even been so kind as to reply with a thank you when they promotion started going on or after it was completed. What has happened is that when they have something else to promote, they immediately contact again and, in that, still no thank you for the previous work done. So it's not just the fact that there has never been any public acknowledgement, there has never been a private thank you. Quoting Elaine: 'That might be okay, in most instances. C.I.'s not a glory hog and shuns publicity. Always has. But when you're discussing something C.I.'s covered from the beginning and you're not giving credit, you really aren't hurting C.I. You're just demonstrating that, like most of the great unwashed indymedia crowd, you were raised in a barn where manners meant you snorted before nudging your way to the trough.' Now not only is that rude to C.I. and the community, it's also true that big media, due to C.I.'s friends in big media, reads The Common Ills. C.I. pushes things with them revolving around the Iraq war but when they read the snapshots, they learn about things other than war resisters, for instance. And, in terms of radio programs, many had been checking out various radio programs that C.I. has noted. So shout outs have also provided that exposure. The thank yous for any of this have been non-existent and, as with last week, when we're arriving at the point where C.I. is not even credited for work done, that's really the last straw. I have nothing against Alexander Cockburn and agreed with C.I.'s comments that Cockburn's not offering anything that should be that upsetting. If you believe he's wrong, then it's not the end of the world. If you believe he's correct, then follow through. And if you're just curious, continue reading. This is not the only topic he writes on. But in terms of independent media specifically, I have no desire to promote it currently with few exceptions. I think they've demonstrated bad manners and predatory behavior. I read several mainstream publications -- daily papers and publications -- and gather more than enough info not to have to search out independent media. I did in the past because I was trying to be helpful but I don't believe in one-way-street relationships."
This has screwed with this community all last week. It has caused tensions, it has caused uproars, it has resulted in more than anyone can deal with. That is not to say, "Shame on members who complained." As you will note, taking Dona's advice, all members who run websites except C.I. shared their complaints at their websites. This community's various sites could have all gone dark last week due to this one issue. A lot of people were thinking, "What's the point?" Why give and give when there is never a thank you but there's always time for rip-offs? As noted already, Jim was with C.I. on the road (they were speaking to young people about the illegal war) and Jim's observations were that the most difficult part of each day was when C.I. had to "hunker down and work on something that was going up at The Common Ills. This caused too much, this hurt too much, there is no excuse for it and C.I. never spoke about this, refused to comment even when I was sharing my feelings, and that's the only reason that members continued to find new content at The Common Ills. However, they may have noted the delays and, if they did, it was from dealing with the response of everyone to being ripped off. I firmly believe C.I.'s statement that there's been no time to think about it on a personal level because we had a very tight speaking schedule all week and because any time not doing that was usually spent on writing for The Common Ills. When I shared that upon returning Friday night, Dona, Ty, Ava, Jess and I made the decision that those involved will never get a mention from us again. They will never be named here. They no longer exist. They f**ked with this community, f**ked us over and nearly destroyed us. I had already shared with C.I. that this needed to be a regular edition because, my opinion, so many were wondering, as Mike was, 'What's the point?', that to not immediately go into our usual mode would make it that much more difficult to do so next week and might in fact mean the end of the site. That it came to this point speaks to how used this community was and how ripped off C.I. was."
So, for future reference, to the e-mailer wondering about Alexander Cockburn or any one else. Don't write us and ask us why we don't note someone, write them and ask why they don't note us? We've done our share. Many, many times over. Translation, we already gave at the office.