Who's IndyMedia working for?

[JailBush]

As you probably know, IndyMedia is a network of "independent media," with outposts across the U.S. and in other nations. I'm not all that familiar with it, and most IndyMedia branches may be on the level. However, I've made several observations that I find disturbing.

A couple very corrupt left-wing Seattle operatives - the Green Party of Seattle's Brita Butler-Wall and columnist Geov Parrish (The Seattle Weekly, Eat The State) - appear to be very close to the IndyMedia's Seattle branch.

After Paul Wellstone was killed, I created a website as both a tribute to Wellstone and a discussion of "political plane crashes." Geov Parrish ran straight to IndyMedia and dashed off a piece blasting all the loony conspiracy theorists who suspected Wellstone may have been assassinated. One of his colleagues wrote a similar piece.

That's BS! No one said Wellstone WAS murdered, but many people SPECULATED. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it would have been utterly stupid to not ask questions.

I've noticed another thing about IndyMedia and Eat The State - http://www.eatthestate.org/: They aren't designed to be of much use to researchers. There's tons of good information on both sites (though I've also discovered lots of propaganda ot EatTheState). But how much work would it take to create a simple REFERENCE SECTION???

It appears to me that some of these sites just like to shoot the sh*t and, in some cases, overwhelm visitors with information and pictures. Look at Seattle IndyMedia's website, at http://seattle.indymedia.org/

Sheez, how can anyone wade through all that stuff? I'm not saying it isn't useful information, but they ought to have prominent link at the top labeled REFERENCE. Otherwise, I feel like a roadrunner on speed when I visit that site.

Some jerk who calls himself Troy Prouty* (he spells it with an asterisk) was giving me a lot of crap on a local chatboard when I was running for public office. One day, he sent me the following private message:

"There is this group in Seattle that know how to handle certain people that might get in the way.. I don't even have to say a word.. One day the person is there - The next day they have never been born - Get my drift?

"I might know some of these people - or I might not."

Prouty claimed to be affiliated with the Seattle IndyMedia, and it appears that there IS a Troy Prouty IndyMedia connection - though I haven't verified that it's the same Troy Prouty.

I'm absolutely positive that Geov Parrish is corrupt, but I haven't yet investigated IndyMedia in great depth. I just wondered if any others have noted anything suspicious about it, or do you think it's a reputable organization?

[La_Serpiente]

1. I have had

some serious issues with IndyMedia in the past. It is true that they bring up issues that are not covered in the national press, but sometime, they go a little overboard.

It is like they are always looking for trouble.

But then again, I guess they have their right to dissent.

Honestly, I just think they have an viewpoint that is just pure liberal. They are not beholden to any party or anything.

I would like to know where they get their sources though.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

15. Indymedia is a free for all

The groups are pretty loosely knit and you have crazies drifting in and out all the time. Their newswire is open to all, which means you get lots and lots of crap.

That being said, Indymedia is probably the first and biggest world-wide global lefty network going. Good for them.

[gardenista]

2. Probably some 17 year old dweeb.

"Some jerk who calls himself Troy Prouty* (he spells it with an asterisk) was giving me a lot of crap on a local chatboard when I was running for public office. One day, he sent me the following private message:
"There is this group in Seattle that know how to handle certain people that might get in the way.. I don't even have to say a word.. One day the person is there - The next day they have never been born - Get my drift?"

******

The SFIndyMedia boards have their share of little brownshirts, too. Nonetheless, that's a death threat. I would have reported it.

[JailBush]

7. I thought about reporting it...

but in Seattle, it would have been a waste of time.

Another individual was hacking my website and bragging about it on that same chatboard! I contacted the webmaster, and he just shrugged his shoulders.

I'm not even certain if it can be proven that he posted it. It's still online - in my Private Messages box. I can log in and view it, but I wouldn't know how to preserve the evidence for investigators.

Plus, I doubt that I could get a conviction; after all, he didn't say anything specific about killing me. The interesting thing is that I took a lot of crap while I was thinking of running for office - a few death threats, hacked websites and tons of insults - but as soon as I filed, they left me alone.

[Luminous Animal]

3. Who's IndyMedia working for?

Who are you working for?

[JailBush]

8. Who am I working for?

Well, I guess the short answer is me. I'm not affiliated with any political organizations. I think of myself as a children's advocate. Like everyone who opposes George Bush, Inc., I have a general interest in protecting democracy, the environment, etc.

[baby_bear]

4. Just curious about one statement...

...that Parrish is corrupt. I'm just wondering what you drew that conclusion from.

I'm not criticizing your other observations; I reserve my own while I consider the evidence, but I just wondered about this particular statement. Sounds like you may have formed this opinion over time. (I read Parrish in The Seattle Weekly regularly).

Thanks for a thoughtful post.

s_m

[JailBush]

6. Geov Parrish...

I don't have time to give you the whole story, but let me shoot for a brief summary. I used to be one of Parrish's biggest fans. He even shook my hand and thanked me for all the praise when I attended an endorsement interview with the Seattle Weekly. Shortly after that, he followed the Weekly's lead in stabbing me in the back.

So I decided to take a closer look. I had a tough time spotting the propaganda in his articles, but I gradually began to understand his strategy. I talked to Parrish on the phone one time, urging him to write more about public education. He told me he wasn't interested in that issue.

Yet Parrish now writes about education quite frequently. But his education articles are absolutely clueless and deceptive. More telling yet are his election campaign endorsements. For example, he once snubbed a school board candidate who wasn't really polished. (I think his name was David Lewis.) I met with the guy, and it's true - he wasn't a professional con man like the corrupt incumbent, Don Nielsen - the most conservative member of the school board. How could Parrish not support ANYONE against Nielsen???

This year, Parrish heartily endorsed four Seattle School Board candidates, describing them as "outsiders." You can see one of his endorsement articles at http://www.eatthestate.org/08-04/Election2003With.htm

Reality Check: NONE of these creeps are outsiders! Irene Stewart is actually a member of Greg Nickels' administration , and she was also recruited by the school board for a committee relating to their last big financial blunder. Why would the school board recruit an outsider???

Another example is Doug Schafer, the attorney who brought down the notorious "Cadillac Judge," then ran for public office twice. The first time around, I don't think he was even mentioned by either the Seattle Weekly or Eat The State. During his last bid, the Weekly mentioned him - but they didn't endorse him; they made a ridiculous comments about an election campaign being a bizarre way to fix the system! If you visit their archives and type in Doug Schafer, you can probably find that comment pretty easily; it's absolutely irrational. See if you can find any mention of Schafer on Eat The State.

I've given Parrish many, many tips about Seattle's "education mafia" and pointed out errors in his writing, but he just ignores me. I'm working on a website that will feature all of the evidence I've dug up that indicts him. Some of it might not immediately make sense to people who aren't familiar with Seattle politics or public education, but it's all very logical when examined carefully.

It makes you wonder how many other corporate operatives are posing as leftists. Mediawhoresonline.ocm (Mediawhores.com?) does a great job of exposing conservative media whores, but they do have their liberal counterparts - and they're far more dangerous.

[pschoeb]

11. Umm, your kinda biased since you ran for Seattle School Board

JailBush or I assume David Blomstrom(it's the name featured prominantly on the website in your signature) wrote:

"This year, Parrish heartily endorsed four Seattle School Board candidates, describing them as "outsiders." You can see one of his endorsement articles at http://www.eatthestate.org/08-04/Election2003With.htm

Reality Check: NONE of these creeps are outsiders! Irene Stewart is actually a member of Greg Nickels' administration , and she was also recruited by the school board for a committee relating to their last big financial blunder. Why would the school board recruit an outsider???"

So what your really saying is you don't like Geov Parrish, because he didn't endorse your candidacy when you ran for Seattle School Board.This also explains why you dislike Brita Butler-Wall, as she ran against you in the primary.

Here's the google cache to the Seattle School Board candidates for 2003 primary
http://216.239.33.104/search?q=cache:vIQe9e62xuoJ:www.munileague.org/cec/2003/report/shoolboard/default.htm+David+blomstrom+candidate&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

You lost the primary and ran as a write in candidate, which the King County elections office said was invalid by election rules. But of course Geov should have endorsed you, even though you couldn't legally win the election?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/brfs266.shtml

Ex-School Board candidate ineligible for job, office says
David Blomstrom, who has campaigned as a write-in candidate for the Seattle School Board, is not eligible for the job, according to the King County Elections Office.

State law prohibits electing someone in a general election who has appeared on the preceding primary ballot for that same position and been defeated, acting elections Superintendent Julie Anne Kempf said.
Blomstrom finished last in the four-way September primary for the District 3 seat, which is held by Nancy Waldman. Waldman faces Mary Jean Ryan in the general election.

Kempf said the Elections Office sent Blomstrom a letter three or four weeks ago telling him he was not eligible for election.

But Blomstrom said yesterday he had not received the letter from the Elections Office. He said he might continue to run for office as a protest vote.

On one of your sites we can see what Geov said about you when you ran in the 1999 School Board Elections. Here is the cache as your site geobop no longer has your section against Geov.

http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:qJ5mf0GN1IUJ:www.geobop.com/Education/Media/People/Parrish/+David+Lewis+seattle+candidate&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Then, there’s Director District #3(were Geov Parrish writes) “The clear choice here is Dwight VanWinkle, a community activist who has led the fight against Channel One in schools. His opponents are David Blomstrom, a substitute teacher who has many of the right ideas in criticizing the district’s corruption but is frankly unhinged in his hatred of John Stanford and his suspicion of conspiracies all around us.”

Patrick Schoeb

[JailBush]

12. Nice Try...but you missed by a mile.

"So what your really saying is you don't like Geov Parrish, because he didn't endorse your candidacy when you ran for Seattle School Board."

You're getting warm. As I very clearly said, I couldn't figure out why he failed to endorse David Lewis against Don Nielsen during a school board campaign I wasn't even involved in. Do you know who Don Nielsen is? Do you know WHAT he is???

"This also explains why you dislike Brita Butler-Wall, as she ran against you in the primary."

I don't like Brita Butler-Wall because she's an operative. I urged her to join me in calling for an INDEPENDENT AUDIT years ago, but she refused. Coca Cola was virtually her ONLY issue. Then she suddenly discovered fiscal accountability - AFTER the school board lost millions of dollars and AFTER she filed as a candidate.

Brita Butler-Wall has no track record. Between the Green Party of Seattle's website and CCCS' websites, you can learn virtually nothing about her education issues - because she has none.

"You lost the primary and ran as a write in candidate, which the King County elections office said was invalid by election rules. But of course Geov should have endorsed you, even though you couldn't legally win the election?"

Uh, Parrish could have endorsed me during the PRIMARY election. I ran against Nancy Waldman - the corrupt incumbent that Brita Butler-Wall beat this time around - Mary Jean Ryan (a member of Mayor Schell's administration with links to the Clinton administration) and Dwight Van Winkle, one of Brita Butler-Wall's associates. Like Butler-Wall, he was a strikingly one-issue candidate. I gave him tons of information and begged him to help publicize some of the major issues facing the district. Keep in mind that this would have HELPED his campaign. But he followed the same tack as Brita Butler-Wall and most other corrupt candidates - focus on one relatively harmless issue and say as little as possible.

"On one of your sites we can see what Geov said about you when you ran in the 1999 School Board Elections. Here is the cache as your site geobop no longer has your section against Geov.

http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:qJ5mf0GN1IUJ:www.geobop.com/Education/Media/People/Parrish/+David+Lewis+seattle+candidate&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Then, there’s Director District #3(were Geov Parrish writes) “The clear choice here is Dwight VanWinkle, a community activist who has led the fight against Channel One in schools. His opponents are David Blomstrom, a substitute teacher who has many of the right ideas in criticizing the district’s corruption but is frankly unhinged in his hatred of John Stanford and his suspicion of conspiracies all around us.”

That's another example of Geov Parrish's BS.

1) I was NOT a substitute teacher at the time and hadn't been for several years. (I have nothing against substitutes; I just think Parrish ought to get his facts straight.)

2) "Unhinged" in my hatred of John Stanford??? Do you know what Stanford was all about and what he did to the school district? Parrish doesn't care, because he doesn't give a damn about public schools - or children.

3) I'm suspicious of "conspiracies all around us." Well, that's a classic - the conspiracy card. As a matter of fact, I AM suspicious of conspiracies all around us. Watergate was a conspiracy, as was 9/11 (even if all the conspirators were Arabs).

Every election in Seattle is a conspiracy. Type the candidates' names into the archives of the Seattle Times, Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Seattle Weekly. My name scarcely registers. There were no public forums before the primary election. But they had several forums AFTER the primary - after I was out of the running.

That's our media in action. Or would you have us believe the Seattle media don't engage in conspiracies?

[pschoeb]

13. I don't really have time to get into minutia

But I linked to your google cache of your old diatribe against Geov Parrish.

http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:qJ5mf0GN1IUJ:www.geobop.com/Education/Media/People/Parrish/+David+Lewis+seattle+candidate&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
lurkers should probably read the thing to get a feel

In it you claim that Parrish was in some conspiracy to screw you and others over for the 1999 School Board elections, because he didn't endorse you.

The when he does endorse you in 2000, (because all the candidates sucked) its supposedly an underhanded tactic to get you to stop criticizing him, (which is laughable).

He's pretty much damned no matter what his opinion is.

Most of the rest of your post is distortion, Parrish called Neilson awfull, but Lewis as flaky. he didn't endorse anyone, because really how do you choose between awfull and flaky. I hardly think anyone reading "Eat the State" decided to vote for Neilson based on Parrish calling him "awfull, and the leading pusher of corporate advertising". But your right it must all be part of his underhanded scheme to get Neilson to stay in office, despite the fact that Eat the State had written several articles condemning Neilson(and Stanford) earlier that same year in 1997. http://www.eatthestate.org/01-25/NoSalefor.htm

Then you claim Brita Butler-Wall is an operative, but since she was one of the most outspoken critics of Neilson in 1997, by your rules that must mean that you are really part of the conspiracy to get Neilson elected in 1997, and we can't trust a word you say.(sarcasm)

Then you say Parrish "lied" when he said you were a substitute teacher, which supposedly you weren't at the time, but had been at one time. I assume he just read your voter pamphlet bio, and thought that teaching experience might be something voters would be interested in an election for School Board. So he should have said former substitute teacher, oh no the conspiracy!. By the way what was your occupation in 1999? your listing for the 2003 elections lists you as unemployed, should Parrish have written that?

Parrish thought Stanford was terrible as well, but it's clear he felt you thought that Stanford was some kind of real ultimate evil, the devil incarnate and not in a figuartive sense(and I get that impression from your writing) , with that kind of logic who knows what else you might do.

Yes we understand, you didn't get elected to the Seattle School Board because of a conspiracy.

Patrick Schoeb

[JailBush]

14. KCD?

But the devil is in the details.

"But I linked to your google cache of your old diatribe against Geov Parrish."

"Diatribe" is loaded word; you sound like one of Parrish's allies.

"In it you claim that Parrish was in some conspiracy to screw you and others over for the 1999 School Board elections, because he didn't endorse you."

No, not just because he didn't endorse me. Because of many things that don't add up - his claim that he doesn't care about education followed by his sudden interest in it, his passionate support of Brita Butler-Wall while ignoring a hundred important issues, his refusal to endorse David Lewis against one of Seattle's most infamous conservatives, his refusal to even MENTION Doug Schafer, and on and on. There's clearly something going on.

"The when he does endorse you in 2000, (because all the candidates sucked) its supposedly an underhanded tactic to get you to stop criticizing him, (which is laughable)."

No, it's not. The Green Party of Seattle has used similar tactics - endorsing the underdog only when it was too late in the game to do any good, or giving them an inspid endorsement that doesn't count for much.

"He's pretty much damned no matter what his opinion is."

Baloney; he's a free moral agent who's working for the other side.

"Most of the rest of your post is distortion, Parrish called Neilson awfull, but Lewis as flaky. he didn't endorse anyone, because really how do you choose between awfull and flaky."

EASY - Choose flaky! Don Nielsen isn't just awful; he's EVIL. Evil people do bad things. Flaky people MIGHT do bad things, but it's equally like they'll do good things. Nielsen has a corporate agenda.

"I hardly think anyone reading "Eat the State" decided to vote for Neilson based on Parrish calling him "awfull, and the leading pusher of corporate advertising"."

Nor did they vote for David Lewis; that's the point.

"But your right it must all be part of his underhanded scheme to get Neilson to stay in office, despite the fact that Eat the State had written several articles condemning Neilson(and Stanford) earlier that same year in 1997. http://www.eatthestate.org/01-25/NoSalefor.htm"

BINGO! So why didn't Parrish endorse Nielsen's opponent when he had the chance? Dismissing him as flaky as lame in the extreme.

"Then you claim Brita Butler-Wall is an operative, but since she was one of the most outspoken critics of Neilson in 1997, by your rules that must mean that you are really part of the conspiracy to get Neilson elected in 1997, and we can't trust a word you say.(sarcasm)"

Baloney; Butler-Wall was NOT one of Nielsen's most outspoken critics. That honor goes to me.

"Then you say Parrish "lied" when he said you were a substitute teacher, which supposedly you weren't at the time, but had been at one time. I assume he just read your voter pamphlet bio<snip>

I didn't call myself a substitute teacher in the voter's pamphlet bio.

"By the way what was your occupation in 1999? your listing for the 2003 elections lists you as unemployed, should Parrish have written that?"

Why not? It would be nice to see Parrish tackle the truth for a change.

"Parrish thought Stanford was terrible as well, but it's clear he felt you thought that Stanford was some kind of real ultimate evil, the devil incarnate and not in a figuartive sense(and I get that impression from your writing) , with that kind of logic who knows what else you might do."

Parrish wrote ONE good article damning Stanford - then he retreated and practically supported him on several occasions. Stanford WAS evil - he was the George Bush of eduction, unless you want to give that honor to Don Nielsen, who recruited him.

"Yes we understand, you didn't get elected to the Seattle School Board because of a conspiracy."

I think you DO understand, but you're a King County Democrat who wouldn't give me a chance, any more than you think I don't give Parrish a chance. As I said, Seattle elections ARE conspiracies. Type the candidates' names into media archives and compare the results.

You say you have no time for minutiae - how convenient. But the devil is in the details. Don't be so lazy.

[La_Serpiente]

5. I believe your answer can be found

here

http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/FrequentlyAskedQuestionEn#what

[JailBush]

9. Thanks.

Of course, that's the OFFICIAL version.

Seattle's WTO protest itself was a pretty amazing affair - not just the protest itself but the events leading up to it. I tried very hard to get involved; I especially wanted to put education reform on the agenda. But every door was slammed in my face. At the time I wasn't aware of the degree to which activists are manipulated by the establishment (or are establishment operatives), but I sure learned a lot from WTO.

The Seattle Education Association (a very corrupt teachers union) sponsored a WTO forum, featuring speakers debating both sides of the issue. I sat at the back of the room in Kane Hall, at the University of Washington. Kraig Peck - a SEA official - entered the room, walked to the back and sat down right in front of me. I wondered if he did it just to mock me, because I noticed b*stard applauding the PRO-WTO speakers! That was really odd, because SEA pretends to support local activists.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

16. "activists are manipulated by the establishment"

I don't know anything about the situation you are describing, but boy are you right about activists being manipulated, even and especially the globalization activists. Follow the money and watch their hands :)

[Tinoire]

10. Wow... Such a deep piercing question

A few weeks ago is was ANSWER. Now it's Indymedia?

What a view from the turnip truck!

Indymedia works for Ashcroft.

[Scott Lee]

17. Mixed Feelings about Indymedia

On one hand I think it's a treasure trove of reports and multimedia from a non BushCo perspective. That's good.

On the other hand, it is poorly (to non) organized, and the site itself is often not running right.

Having some anarchistic feelings at heart, the lack of iron fisted organization doesn't really bother me, but for gods sake a LITTLE would be nice.

How much Geov Parrish has to do with the Seattle branch really doesn't mean crap to me. He may be corrupt. But he's associated with one subsite in a world umbrella. All things considered I wouldn't call that a megalithic problem.