> In other words, if you don't see something on
> our site and believe there should be a story,
> photos, audio, whatever - go out there, cover
> it, and post it.

So that it can be censored because it runs counter to liberal ideology? I got tired of that.

> Indymedia acts as an alternative to the
> corporate press, offering space to those that
> are traditionally denied.

In doing so, Indymedia justifies the bias of the corporate press, because the corporate press offers space to those that IMC traditionally denies.

> Unlike The Sentinel, SC-IMC does not have a long
> history of encouraging the oppression of
> communities (especially indigenous, chinese,
> and chicano) in the Santa Cruz area.

The same broad accusation can be made of SC-IMC, encouraging the oppression of the general anglo-saxon community, especially of men, the wealthy, land owners, Judeo-Christians, and political conservatives.

> Can you link any where in our editorial policy
> that says we "favor liberal and progressive
> angles"?

The editorial policy is not followed; only invoked to justify after-the-fact the editorial actions of one narrow end of the political spectrum.

> You mention that you don't see any interviews
> with Campus Republicans. Again, SC-IMC does not
> have staff to do coverage

Another straw man argument. Conservative commentary or any commentary critical of liberal thought, action, or priorities are regularly censored here. Free and open discource is forbidden here, and the resulting chill upon free speech discourages reporting from all but the far left perspective.

Why take pictures, why do interviews, when we are rarely even allowed to speak in disagreement? In fact I am surprised this thread has lasted this long. That's unusual, as I've seen the majority of them censored by Indymedia's self-appointed guardians of political correctness.