It is fascinating to look at news-media articles from a critical perspective since this is precisely NOT the response such articles serve to provoke. Such articles are intended for passive consumption, presenting fragmented bits of information and flattening all ideas into commodities--political ideologies that compete with each other for dominance. To have any coherent critique of capitalism it is important to understand the way in which its logic is ingrained in the media spectacle, which provides products fit for mass consumption and sees individuals only as a part of that mass. It seems completely relevent for some discussion to take place on indymedia that analyzes the media's role in society. "Discussion" itself is something that does not seem to often take place on indymedia. People write quick judgements of each other in an effort to prove their point, but they never bother to look at the actual points or arguments that others are making. So the comments often take the appearence of a string of isolated statements with little relevence to each other. Everything seems to have relevence only to the extent that someone else can put it in a box, give it a name, and criticize it for not measuring up to some ideology that is placed above criticism, a system of false consciousness that may (like a media article) have little substance but gives the appearence of accuracy and acceptability--at least to those who do not examine the assumptions and preconceived ideas on which it is based. The Good Times article posted above is an excellent example of what journalists are paid to do. It is ridiculous for anarchists to expect anything else. The only way anarchists could make themselves "look good" for the media would be for them to turn their ideas into another commodity or political opinion and then present these pre-packaged opinions to the media, effectively eschewing any consistent anarchist practice. With the Good Times article we are told of "internal mayhem"--how exciting! In line with what I have said, anarchy is portrayed as a "political theory," not a theory against all politics--as such a thing is actually in conflict with a media based on political spectacles. We are then told that a clash of philosophies led to the demise of the anarchist center. How? Was the eviction of any importance or was this clash so cataclysmic that nobody could possibly go on? Why the fact that an entire collective does not appear on the lease is of any importance eludes me. But it certainly can't be a good thing, right? Bob Fitch is awkardly inserted into the latter half of the article. As there is no clear link between the eviction and the spectacular ideological mayhem, the article is disjointed and doesn't cover either topic with any more than a superficial understanding of what was involved. Is "get really real" ( the person who posted the article) the same person who posted as "get real"? Or perhaps "get really real" was trying to put in the final word on some of the topics "get real" was concerned with. The Good Times article perhaps told the definitive media tale of the anarchist infoshop, but it didn't really tell you much at all--it wasn't supposed to. I have not focused on the real disagreements that arose within the collective as I feel this is not the best place to discuss these sometimes very personal topics. Despite the fact that I was glad to have Maya involved in the infoshop for the time that she was, I don't understand why she would go to the media and further confuse this already exagerrated situation. I feel that the media will always confuse "what the whole movement is about" precisely because they can only see it as a stereotype, an image of rebelliousness, or a political ideology and not a diverse group of individuals working toward some common goals--in many ways not a unified "movement." For his part, the journalist was entirely predictable. He got his story of internal conflict and then asked a remaining collective member to "refute what seems to be the situation" (quote taken from an e-mail), already clear about the type of story he was writing--one of exagerrated conflict and little background information.