SWP up to their old dirty tricks again

by Amused Trinity Student - Ramu Demha Mon Dec 15, 2003 01:56

The last time that I checked I was sure that the Trinity News was the college's independent newspaper, free from such evils as the Student Union and the SWP. However, I may be wrong as the author of this rage ridden piece seems to be pointing to although on this occasion I am a little bemused as to how the SWP managed to change Socialist Worker to Trinity News and confuse a student population into reading about the heroic endeavours of Rory Hearne. Unfortunately, I do not believe this to be the case. The SWP do not write the Trinity News and apparently neither does Rory Hearne. So this leads us to the only valid conclusion: your problem is actually with the author of the piece in the Trinity News and should not really be with Rory Hearne as it was not he who published the article. When you put an organisation second on a list of contributors to a particular movement who have failed to be mentioned, the likely conclusion is that you are a part of that organisation. Are you the sole member of the Socialist party operating in Trinity College, or could I be wrong in assuming that these are not sectarian swipes but a broader criticism of the manner in which student journalists go about their business of composing biased articles in favour, God/Nothing knows why, of the SWP. You are obviously a fellow student layabout scrounging off the taxpayer, as it would be rather unusual for someone who is not a student to read the Trinity News. Furthermore, I can only assume that you are a Trinity student. If so, you presumably know that students are not the most enthusiastic bunch and can probably imagine that the author of the article in Trinity News wasn't bothered going to every person involved in the campaign just because he was a lazy bastard. To sum up: though there are many occasions when the SWP warrants some rather heavy criticism this is not one of those times and should you wake up tomorrow and realise your stupidity an apology for your insane babble would probably be proper order. I doubt you will give one and I don't really care anyway.
There is one last thing concerning this article. If you have not read the article there is no point in commenting on it. The usual nonsense of abuse throwing is not constructive and has grown quite tiresome.

by cabhog Mon Dec 15, 2003 11:39

If there is a problem with the p[iece write a letter to the editor of Trinity News pointing out the inaccurarcies, if they are really in the grips of a SWP junta they won't publish it, if it was a simple mistake they will.

by Shane Kenna - Socialist Party Mon Dec 15, 2003 13:16 socialist_tcd at hotmail dot com

Firstly I feel I need to answer a serious comment made above in the first reply to the original article.

It has been implied that I wrote the above piece. This is completely untrue. I have far better things to do then to make comments about Rory Hearne and the SWP, besides as the trinity SWSS are aware I am not the sort writes this kind of rubbish and have been more than happy in working with them in the past as part of the boycott coke campaign and the Anti BNP work.

Again the accusation is thrown that the Trinity SP is one member of the SP - once more you are wrong.

Personally I dont see a problem with the article. Rory makes very correct points, points which the campaign had argued and I commend him for putting forward our arguments in such a mannor.

I agree with the point of the first poster that this issue should be taken up with the editor and is not the fault of Rory Hearne of the Trinity SWSS.

We all seem to be losing the plot here. The important thing is that we won a major victory over the BNP and proved that a group of student activists can make a real difference. This kind of mudslingling is fairly unwelcome and unkind and divisive.

Yours Fraternally
Shane Kenna

by Amused Mon Dec 15, 2003 16:05

I have to point out - why does an individuals gripe remain on the newswire ?- it is not news. It's not even a link to the article - therefore a single piece in one college newspaper becomes a fronpage issue. Maybe because it mentions SWP dirty tricks (or SP) it stays. Our anarcho-censorers reveal their hand again.
PS If I could be bothered I would publish a news item discussing an argument I had with an anarchist in a bar - where they claimed etc etc How long would it remain up there....

by Joe Mon Dec 15, 2003 16:21

Nice try 'amused' but if the author is an anarchist it is a little odd that he mentions neither the TCD anarchist society nor any of the individual anarchists there. The style is also that of other inter-trot feuds on indymedia.

Now trot back to the dogma board like a good little puppy.

by One Indymedia Editor Mon Dec 15, 2003 16:54

Someone wrote it and considered it news - you can write what you like about it in comments as you have done.

It's on the frontpage because ALL contributions start out on the front page at the top of the wire.

Open publishing - simple really

- and we're not all 'anarchists' either -

by Jenkinstown Junkies Mon Dec 15, 2003 17:33

blah blah blah
SWP ate my Hamster

by Baile Shenicin Junta Mon Dec 15, 2003 17:44

.

by Amused Mon Dec 15, 2003 17:54

Not that the author is an anarchist - but that the anarcho-censors leave it there. This wouldn't happen if it were gossip about anarcho's. The quick response by one anarcho-censor illustrates the point. By the way ALL contributions don't LAST on the frontpage

by Joe Mon Dec 15, 2003 18:00

'Amused' I don't understand the conspiracy you are putting forward here. Is it that indymedia is secretly controlled by an anarchist cabal that judges every article on whether or not it would be 'good' for anarchism?

by John Meehan Mon Dec 15, 2003 21:03

Forget about debating the anonymous troller "amused"

I, for one, would not mind if the anonymous taunts against "anarcho-censors" were removed - no problem leaving them up if the author identified her/himself.

I congratulate the indymedia editors on recent changes to the site, and a more vigourous policy of deleting irrelevant posts.

Sometimes individual mistakes can be made - but that's life....

Congratulations also to members of the SP and SWP for not rising to a malevolent bait, and avoiding a useless sectarian squabble - good work on the issue by both Shane Kenna and Rory Hearne.

by Amused Mon Dec 15, 2003 22:01

When you wish to divert the debate.

Notice 'John Meehan' - that means as much to me as using 'John Smith' - you had no problem with the replying editor remaining anonymous.

You have a good point of not rising to the bait. However everytime you log on here there are nonsense postings about the left. This is not what indymedia is about. Rather than foster an atmosphere of creativity and ideas, the editors or censorors prefer a climate of mudslinging at the revolutionary left.
Anarcho-censorer is used to illustrate the point that anarchism (or some branches of it) has no problem with censorship - anonymous censorship. That is upto them. But they are quite happy to leave troll postings like the above in place.

The newsvalue is zero and purely based on the opinions of a single person. If that's news then any accusation no matter how trivial aimed at the left is fair game.
"SWP up to their old tricks" is subjective on 2 accounts - but hardly news. Why not post 'WP still a bunch of Stalinists' "Anarchists still bunch of middle-class poseurs" 'Sinn Fein up to usual US arse licking ways' with a paragraph based on a leaflett they were giving out, but nobody could read.

It then becomes the interpretation of the 'editor[s]' whether or not to remove it. That's where their own political prejudices kick in (like any editor[s]). I think its fair to say that because the SWP or SP are on the receiving end it stays. Letting shit stay is as problematic as censoring.

by Anthony - Indymedia Ireland Editorial Group Tue Dec 16, 2003 00:14

As a rule, I don't normally comment on the newswire about editorial policy. The comments are for adding extra information, corrections, context or analysis to the original article - not discussing editorial policy (or any of the many other ways in which it is regularly abused).

If anyone wants to contribute toward editorial policy, just subscribe to the editorial list and / or the newswire list. The newswire list details all actions carried out by any of the editors. (Be aware that it's generally a very high traffic list.) You'll be able to see why items were edited or deleted. You can also point out actions you think should be carried out by the editorial collective or query actions they've already carried out. That's why we call it Open Publishing.

We don't always get it right and we do respond to queries and suggestions. If you're not subscribed to the lists, you can use the contact form at http://www.indymedia.ie/contact.php
Sometimes an editor will make a decision only to have other editors later overturn the action and unhide a comment or article.

Anyhow, I've just spotted this article and I think Amused has a point. The editorial group are definitely not all anarchist. (To be honest, I'm not aware of the political background of most of the other editors.) However there does seem to be a generally libertarian ethos and there aren't any Leninists on the editorial team. I think it's fair to say that while we do our best to be objective, our actions - or maybe more precisely, our inactions - will be a reflection of our individual perspectives.

For example, I generally tend not to read articles dealing with the many "crimes" of the SP or the LP where protagonists attack each other's organisation. I just find such articles incredibly boring and it can sometimes be hard to distinguish between trolls and genuine comments if one isn't aware of the past history of the parties and personalities involved. (I wish people had better things to do but then again I wish we had world peace and were living in a classless society.) If a troll starts to make unjustifiable allegations against a certain individual or organisation regarding an issue that I'm not au fait with, I may not spot them as being trolls.

Having said that, quite a few obvious negative comments directed against the SWP and SP or misrepresentations of their position do get hidden. I've recently hidden impersonations of Brian Cahill and Aoife Ni Fheargaill - both IMO good contributors to the site on the occasions when they do so.

Regarding this specific piece, I'd agree it's irrelevant and trivial. I find it hard to understand why someone would go to the bother of posting such an article to this site rather than take it up with Trinity News themselves. However, I'll leave it up for the moment as Shane Kenna's response has done a good job of clarifying the matter for those who are concerned about such things.