"The working parts of journalism are exposed. Open publishing assumes the reader is smart and creative and might want to be a writer and an editor and a distributor and even a software programmer. Open publishing assumes that the reader can tell a crappy story from a good one. That the reader can find what they're after, and might help other readers looking for the same trail.

We trust the audience and it seems that the audience trusts us in return.

Open publishing is playing at the opposite end of the trust spectrum to the corporate media.

We are not working to convince people that this is a good way to do things. We are providing a space in which people might decide themselves if this is a good way to do things."

1. have "people" decided yet?

2. if we want "the working parts of journalism... exposed" then shouldn't minutes from la-imc meetings be posted publicly on the la-imc website? comparable notes from kpfk are usually posted publicly on the goodlight board. shouldn't la-imc be at least as committed to transparency as that institution?

3. what does it mean to "trust" us. what do you really trust me to do - that any number of corporate internet forums don't trust me to do?

4. if you assume "that the reader can tell a crappy story from a good one. That the reader can find what they're after, and might help other readers looking for the same trail", then why do you haphazardly delete posts and ignore the efforts of users to develop cooperative systems?






---------------------------------------------------------------------
anticrisis