Indymedia covers the corporate media

Indymedia is NOT propaganda?
Hey, buddy, put the MDMA away and try to re-join us here on Earth.

Yeah well "mainstream" media consistantly try's to say it's completely unbiased about all things er...

Gulf War coverage
NATO bombings
Israeli settlements and bombings of palestinian areas
Oh WTO, Genoa etc, etc

I'd ask you to check up what the major broadsheets and networks in 4 english speaking industrialised powers, say Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada had to say about ALL those issues, guess what they all consistantly said the same things, in many cases word for word. Not because the one interpretation was valid in all of those cases, certainly not because only one interpretation existed

Yes the contributers to Indymedia websites have a point of view, in fact everybody has a point of view, unlike people who write for news wharehouses like CNN or News Corp their honest about where they stand on the issues and dont pretend to be "unbiased" when their not

Get off the Prozac kid

you say that indymedia is propaganda. this brings the questions "what does it propagandise?" "for whose interest?" and "who creats it?".
I can't answer these questions because I haven't read much of the articles. Who creats the articles? IMC says anybody can contribute an article as long as it 1)is news and not an opinion 2)it is factitious and not libelous : http://www.indymedia.org/publish.php3?group=webcast
It sounds fair but why don't we read about articles that are against the alternative, radical etc. mainstream. Why isn't there an article that supports the dam in the three gorges in china because it will be flood protecting...etc.
Why is there an article that advertises IMC, I mean which "body" of IMC has such a policy and "need"?
Who has contributed to IMC, is one of us (we are the people) and can answer me?
btw I like this form, it's democratic enough regardless of whether IMC is propagandistic or not.