#Climatecamp is a clear example of the transition from alternative media to social media. When the Climate Change Movement began, #Indymedia was already in decline. At the first two Climate Camps, however, there was still a healthy Indymedia centre providing internet access, sustainable power, and shared computers.
There has always been tension between alternative media and outreach to traditional media. They compete with each other and, to a large extent, ignore one another. Yet for real social change, the two need to work together. Outreach to traditional media should support the production of alternative media, while alternative media should feed its strongest output into traditional media to amplify its reach.
At Climate Camp, this relationship existed mostly in name. In practice, the two groups split early on. They were originally meant to share the same physical space, but this arrangement did not last.
Traditional media outreach focused on cultivating relationships with mainstream journalists. Alternative media, meanwhile, was weighed down by the practical work of providing real services in a field that is, by nature, somewhat dysfunctional. Like oil and water, the two separated – there was no conscious “emulsifier” to hold them together. Throughout the life of Climate Camp, they never truly recombined.
Part of this split came from prejudice within activist culture itself. So-called “radical” activists often looked down on what were seen as “soft” forms of work, such as media production. This attitude is deeply embedded in activist lifestyles and is often framed through the old “spiky versus fluffy” debate.
The history to this is worth remembering – for a time, activist media and traditional media outreach followed parallel paths, each playing a role. Then blogging emerged, followed – more decisively – by #dotcons social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. A new class of #NGO-focused careerists championed these tools, which at first appeared to be remarkably effective.
Traditional media outreach initially ignored social media, reflecting the skepticism of mainstream media at the time. Naive alternative media embraced social media as a route to real social change. More realistic alternative media adopted it cautiously, seeing it mainly as another outreach channel, one that bypassed traditional gatekeepers.
The rise of social media proved catastrophic for grassroots alternative media. #NGO careerists pushed these platforms hard, and for naive alt-media practitioners they appeared to be a cure-all: the future, and the only way to be heard. Traditional media, after first seeing social media as a threat, soon embraced it and learned how to use it effectively.
Meanwhile, the remaining radical alternative media struggled on with declining relevance. Their tools aged and fell apart, and the limitations of geek culture left them unable to compete with either traditional media or the new social media platforms.
Eventually, social media absorbed activist media entirely. Traditional media retained its role by adapting late but successfully to social platforms.
As I argued in another article, geek culture seriously damaged radical alternative media. At the same time, the failure of traditional media outreach to complement activist media pushed radical voices to the margins. The growth of individual blogging briefly amplified personal voices, but ultimately weakened collective cultural power. The final blow was the wholesale embrace of social media, driven by NGO careerists.
Through these failures, we have come full circle, back to a media landscape dominated by hegemonic gatekeepers. If we are to rebuild an open media ecosystem, we must learn from these mistakes and ensure we do not repeat them.
Lessons to Learn
- Overcome the limits of geek culture in activist media. Openness – social as much as technical – is the way forward.
- Recognise the politics of media. We need a deliberate “emulsifier” between radical grassroots media and traditional media outreach. Social movements must rein in and refocus mainstream media messaging. Media production is not “soft”; it is spiky, strategic, and central to activism.
- Accept the incompatibility with NGO careerism. Radical grassroots media cannot coexist out of balance with NGO careerist agendas. Strong foundations are needed, so media infrastructure cannot be captured or subverted by privileged actors, this is ultimately in everyone’s interest.
Conclusion
The hardest parts of building successful radical grassroots media are social, cultural, and political. For this reason, such projects must not be led by technology. In fact, technology is the easiest part of radical media work.
The tools and standards we need already exist. What is missing is the collective will – and the common sense – to use what we already have.
In my expirence the flowering of the 
