The Amateur

Computerist

Spring 2006 Volume 14 No. 1

Table of Contents

Back to Our Roots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1

Voice of the UAW Worker.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3

Constitutional Death of the UAW.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 10

GM Buyouts No ‘Christmas’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 15

French Youth Up in Arms.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 20

NYC Transit Strike. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 25

Origin of the Net, Emergence of Netizen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 28

Michael Hauben: Columbia 250

Birthday. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 38

Misunderstanding about ‘Netizen’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 39

Advancing “News guerrillas”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 40

Impact of Net on Chinese Press Politics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 46

Back to Our Roots

In this issue, the Amateur Computerist returns a bit to its roots. This

newsletter grew out of the computer programming classes at the Ford

Motor Company Rouge plant in Dearborn, Michigan. These classes were

part of a benefit won by the UAW during negotiations with Ford in the

1980s. The UAW members agreed not to oppose the introduction of

modern technology in exchange for Ford contributing a nickel for every

regular hour of work by UAW represented workers. The fairly large pool

of money from the ‘Nickel an Hour Fund’ was earmarked for training

and educational development, hence the computer programming classes.

However, without opposition from the UAW, by 1986, Ford began

Webpage: http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/

Page 1

to eliminate the classes even though the classes were a benefit agreed to

at the bargaining table. Inspired by the spirit of the Flint Sit-Down strike

50 years earlier, the students and computer instructor put up a fight to

maintain the classes. When they lost that fight, some of the workers and

their instructor founded this newsletter to continue their interest in

computing.

Now, twenty years later, autoworkers, employed by the Delphi auto

parts corporation, are fighting against threatened plant closures and cuts,

this time of pension and healthcare benefits. They too are looking back

to the spirit of the sit down strikers. The first three articles in this issue

tell some of the story of Delphi’s attempted cutbacks. That story

includes the cooperation between Delphi and the UAW leadership to

make the cuts. But also there is the fight back of the workers and the role

of the mainstream U.S. press. The press is distorting the nature of what

Delphi and GM are doing, suggesting somehow that these cut backs are

a good thing. But as our headline says, there was “No Christmas in

March.”

On an encouraging notes, the article, “French Youth Up in Arms”

tells of the first student and worker demonstrations on March 7, 2006

which eventually forced the government of France to rescind a new

labor law. That law, if left in place, would have curtailed the labor rights

of young workers and pitted young new hires against older workers.

Also, the article, “First NYC Transit Strike in 25 Years,” tells of the

beginning of a fight that prevented the imposition of a two tiered

working situation where younger NYC transit workers would have had

lower benefits.

This issue also continues the story carried by the Amateur

Computerist since the 1990s of the development of the Internet and the

emergence of the netizens. In the article on the international and

scientific origin of the Internet, some of the myths of the origin of the

Internet are refuted. A connection is made between the vision of J. C.

R. Licklider that inspired Internet development and the social compo-

nent which particularly supported netizen activity. The particular effect

of the netizen movement on South Korean society is tied into the visions

of Licklider and of Michael Hauben who first documented the netizen

identity in the early 1990s.

Page 2

We are timing this issue for early May not only because May 1 is

International Workers Day, but also because it was the date when our

late editor Michael Hauben was born in 1973. To remember his

contribution and honor his birthday, we include the brief sketch of

Michael that appeared as part of the 250

anniversary celebration of

Columbia University. It was at Columbia as an undergraduate that

Michael did some of his early research and important work.

Michael’s concept of netizen is having active confirmation in South

Korea. We include a brief blog entry and an article describing

Ohmynews, an online citizen journalist newspaper as two examples of

the netizen phenomenon in Korea.

We end this issue with an article on the impact of the Internet in

China. Online and netizen activity have caused a great change in the

press in China. The Party or bureaucratic press is no longer the single

source for news. Instead there is a contest between the old news form

and what is made possible by the rapid spread of the Internet to now

over 115 million people in China. Li Xiguang from Tsinghua University

wrote about this effect a while ago. We reprint this summary here to

share his story with a wider audience.

These are hard times, but we hope this issue will show that there is

motion and resistance and even progress.

Automakers and the Voice

of the UAW Worker

by Ronda Hauben

Delphi Corporation, the world’s second largest auto parts manufac-

turer, filed for bankruptcy for its North American operations on Oct. 19,

2005. Delphi employs 185,000 workers world-wide and 33,650 hourly

workers in its U.S. operations.

The company has threatened that if it doesn’t get significant cuts in

auto worker wages and benefits via its negotiations with the United Auto

Worker (UAW) union leadership, that on March 30, 2006, it will ask the

Page 3

bankruptcy court to impose substantial cuts in wages and benefits on its

unionized workforce in the U.S. This threat was made by the CEO of

Delphi, Steve Miller. What is the significance of such a threat being

made to workers of the union which helped to provide the benefits and

wages that have set a standard for other workers in the U.S. and

elsewhere around the world?

In 1999, the General Motors Corporation spun off its auto parts

division, setting it up as the Delphi Corporation. The new company had

certain obligations to supply General Motors with parts, but the

workforce, which had previously worked for General Motors under their

GM/UAW contract, was now working for a new company. The Delphi

Corporation at the time of its creation did not have any debt.

Six years later, in October 2005, Delphi claimed that its North

American operations are heavily in debt. The relief it wants from the

bankruptcy court, is help to drastically slash the wages and cut back on

the benefits of its unionized workforce.

Many workers at Delphi denounce the corporation’s claims and

actions. Some are organizing and meeting with other workers from

different Delphi factories to discuss strategy to fight against what they

believe is a fraudulent effort to drastically cut their wages and make

draconian changes in their working conditions. They say that Delphi and

General Motors would be hurt if they go on strike.

Delphi claims that it cannot function in the competitive world

market if it has to pay union wages and benefits to its workforce. Wages

for long time General Motors workers who were transferred to Delphi

when the corporation was created are $27 an hour, or about $56,000 a

year before taxes. But Delphi claims that it costs the company $140,000

a year for each of these union workers, when benefits like pension and

health care costs are factored into the wage costs.

Workers explain the $27 per hour wage is barely enough for them

to have a minimum standard of living, consisting of a place to live, food

and some other expenses such as occasionally eating at a restaurant.

With taxes taken out of their salaries, workers end up with substantially

less than $50,000 a year. Given the high prices of housing and food in

the U.S., this leaves little left over for other expenses. Only by working

overtime, up to 12 hours a day and up to 7 days a week, do union

Page 4

workers at Delphi say they manage to have enough money for a vacation

and education for their children.

In December 2005, several U.S. Congressmen sponsored an online

Congressional hearing, “The American Automobile Industry in Crisis.”

They invited Delphi workers and retirees to submit descriptions of the

conditions of their lives and what would happen to them if they lost the

retiree benefits and union wages that Delphi said it was going to ask the

Court to help it slash.

Over a thousand Delphi workers and retirees responded in writing.

Their submissions are posted on a Congressional Web site maintained

by the Education and the Workforce Committee of the U.S. Congress.

Many of the workers responding describe the dangerous conditions they

endured at their workplaces over a number of years which left them

injured or sick.

Other responses from workers describe how they worked for

General Motors and its parts division for 20 to 30 years with the

commitment that they could retire with a certain minimum level of

pension and health care benefits. Now they are told that Delphi will use

a bankruptcy court to reduce the company’s obligation to pay wages,

pensions and health care benefits.

While Delphi has claimed its North American operations are losing

money, some workers propose that this is the result of accounting

practices that misrepresent what Delphi has actually spent.

For example, Randall Musielak of Frankenmuth, Michigan writes

“The large corporations such as Delphi, GM, Ford, and

Chrysler which lost money according to budget and have never

made profit, still hide millions in black accounts due to creative

bookkeeping. For example, I worked in a trades area where we

would be issued a twenty hour job that takes only two hours to

complete. When finished I would be issued another job. The

assembly line would be charged the full estimated twenty hours

of service into hidden black accounts and would also be written

off in taxes as maintenance...

Delphi can show any loss it chooses and executive’s bonuses

surely do not justify a bankruptcy. To plan, implement,

execute, and deliberately use bankruptcy as a tool in business

Page 5

for greater profit should be reason for investigation. The sticker

price on an automobile clearly shows wages, benefits and

bonuses for GM and Delphi. The bankruptcy should be thrown

out of court and any company owned by another should not be

allowed to use bankruptcy as a business tool; but instead have

to settle thru collective bargaining.

Testimony from another worker, describes the questions the Delphi

tactics are raising among workers

“My name is Patrick Mitchell and I have been employed

with GM/Delphi for almost 29 years.... The question that begs

to be answered is: How can a corporation that was spun off

from GM in 1999 with a fully funded pension, pockets full of

lucrative contracts with General Motors Corp, Toyota, Nissan,

Ford, and Daimler Chrysler end up going bankrupt in 6 short

years and wreck so many lives? They cooked their books, took

advantage of shareholders and investors and have Chief

Corporate executives under investigation and they have the

chutzpah to point their fingers at the hourly worker using the

media to their advantage while trying to reward themselves

with millions of dollars they actually stole from all who

believed in them. Something is wrong in corporate America if

the leadership in Washington allows this to happen.... Thank

you for these hearings.”

Just as workers present a different view of why Delphi is declaring

bankruptcy in its North American operations from what is being

presented in the mainstream press in the U.S., workers also remember

the hard fight it took to get GM to recognize their right to be represented

by the UAW. As Lars Christensen, of Clio, Michigan writes

“I am a third generation autoworker, and am damn proud of it.

My father and grandfather were both sitdowners. My grandfa-

ther used to walk from his car to the house with a baseball bat,

fearful of the beating he would take had the company found

him to be a part of the union.”

Some militant workers are organizing at Delphi to protest the

company’s efforts to “break the contract,” as they explain. They have

begun what they call a “work to rule” (WTR) campaign. As one of the

Page 6

workers explains

“We should Work to Rule. We need to stay inside to preserve

income, save jobs, and fight back. If we follow every rule in

the book, production will slow to a crawl. We can control the

flow of parts by ensuring quality and following rules. It’s

perfectly legitimate.”

This group of dissidents call themselves “Soldiers of Solidarity.”

They want to recapture of the Spirit of ‘37, the militant spirit of the auto

workers which resulted in sit down strikes and culminated in the victory

of the Great Flint Sit Down Strike in 1937.

These rank and file workers describe how General Motors and then

Delphi had taken the profits from the work they and other workers did

and invested it in other parts of the world like Mexico and China.

Essentially, the dissident workers raise the question of whether the

spin off of the General Motors Parts Operations was mainly intended as

a plan to force drastic cutbacks in unionized parts workers’ wages and

benefits. These dissident workers not only criticize General Motors and

Delphi. They also are critical of the leadership of the United Auto

Workers union, which includes the President of the UAW, Ronald

Gettelfinger, and other union officials.

The dissident workers believe that previous concessions given by

the UAW union leadership in exchange for setting up “Joint

UAW-General Motors” activities and structures, were contrary to the

obligation of the union to fight for the well being of the worker. The

Joint UAW-GM structures and activities are aimed at making GM more

competitive, rather than protecting the workers’ wages and working

conditions.

While a number of non union auto factories have been set up in the

U.S. in the last few decades, the dissident Delphi workers point to how

these companies often have higher levels of injuries and a greater

attrition rate among the workers. A smaller percentage of workers

actually get to retire from those factories when compared to the

percentage that are able to retire from the unionized auto factories. Also

the dissident workers point to the fact that if the unionized auto workers

in the U.S. get lower wages, this will also result in lowering the wages

of workers in the non union auto factories.

Page 7

The dissident workers criticize the mainstream press in the U.S. for

repeating General Motors or Delphi claims about the cost of employing

union workers, without doing their own investigation into the reality of

such claims. For example, some in the auto industry claim that it costs

Delphi $140,000 a year to employ a union worker. Dissident workers

ask where these figures come from. They point to the fact that this is a

figure created by inaccurate accounting practices. The cost of the current

union workforce is being said to include the amount of money the

corporation has to pay to retirees. But retirees had pension contributions

put into tax exempt funds that General Motors used for purposes other

than paying for pensions.

Also dissident workers point out that there are many fewer workers

currently producing the same volume of parts or even more which in the

past required a larger workforce. Paying workers who have high

productivity a higher wage in return for that productivity is not

inappropriate, they argue.

One of the most well known of the dissident workers is Gregg

Shotwell. He writes and distributes a publication called “Live Bait and

Ammo.” He explains that workers at Delphi have nothing to lose by

fighting against union officials and management when they are trying to

cut back the wages and pensions of rank and file workers. Shotwell

writes

“Concessions don’t save jobs, improve products, or sell

vehicles. If UAW members agreed to pay for their own medical

insurance, GM would not reduce the price of its cars. The

Board of Directors would simply reward themselves. The only

legitimate solution is Universal Health Care. The UAW should

take the lead and reject all concessions until All Americans

have health care.”

His newsletter documents an ongoing effort to expose what he

believes is the fraud and lies that are being used to cut wages and

benefits that rank and file auto workers have earned through many years

of hard work and struggle.

If Delphi succeeds in imposing the draconian wage cuts and

cutbacks in union benefits via a bankruptcy court as it is trying to do, he

believes that this will send a message to other U.S. corporations that

Page 8

they can use the same strategy to void their collective bargaining union

agreements. He writes

“Delphi is a test case. If the court allows Delphi to bankrupt

U.S. operations while sheltering assets overseas, other multina-

tional will follow suit. When the smoke clears, they will return

under another name.”

The result will be that instead of U.S. workers helping to set a

standard for a living wage, less dangerous working conditions and better

benefits that workers elsewhere can strive for, the U.S. unionized

workers will be helping to lower wages, set the basis for worsening

conditions for workers in other countries.

How this drama will unfold is yet to be decided. Remarkably, there

is a spirited opposition movement within the UAW, at the shop floor

level. Those in opposition believe that it is important that the actual

conditions of the shop floor worker be known and that the workers

themselves be an active part of the ongoing struggle to protect the gains

won by auto workers during the past 70 years.

In his book, “The Wealth of Nations,” the economist Adam Smith,

describes the importance to society of good conditions for its workers.

Smith writes

“No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the

far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.”

Notes

1. For background about the history of the UAW and the role it has played in the

American Labor Movement, see Ronda Hauben, “Lest We Forget: In Tribute To the

Pioneers of the Great Flint Sit Down Strike.”

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/search-

light/lest.we.forget.txt

2. http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/autointroduction.html

http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/autoworkerstestimony2.html

4. http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/autoworkerstestimony2.html

5. http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/autoworkerstestimony2.html

6. Live Bait and Ammo # 54 http://www.soldiersofsolidarity.com/id260.html

7. Michael Hauben, “In Celebration: A Past to Remember, A Future to Mold. The 50

Anniversary of the Flint Sit-Down Strike.” Originally published in The Searchlight, the

newspaper of UAW Local 659, Flint, Michigan, February 11, 1987.

http://www.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/michael/flint.txt

Page 9

8. Live Bait and Ammo #50 http://www.soldiersofsolidarity.com/id267.html

9. Gregg Shotwell, “The Answering Machine,” 01/28/06, MR Zine.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/shotwell280106.html

10. Quoted in Michael Hauben, “The Real Voice of Adam Smith”

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/CS/adamsmith.txt

The Constitutional Death of the UAW

by William D. Hanline and friend

Skiphanline@AOL.com

During the recent rounds of negotiations between the UAW and

General Motors Corporation over healthcare and legacy cost, the UAW,

International Union officers committed a betrayal of trust of their

members and betrayed their oath of office to uphold the UAW Constitu-

tion. This took place all for the sake of preserving their “Cooperation

Partnership” with General Motors Corporation. This betrayal of trust

and confidence encompasses both active and retired members. This

action happened when the misleaders, with forethought and collusion,

agreed to reopen the 2003 UAW-GM National Agreement. Consequen-

tially, their act resulted in a contract that is morally and with out

conscience, contrary to the stated purpose in the UAW Constitution.

This newly proposed deal between the UAW and General Motors

Corporation shows without question, beginning with the 2003 contract

and ending with the 2005 negotiations, the extent the UAW and their

cooperative partner GM will go to maximize the automaker’s competi-

tive position. How their cooperative efforts to divide, whipsaw and pit

the workers and retirees against one another (Young against the Old) for

the sole purpose of transferring wealth from those who can least afford

it, the retirees, to the Stakeholders of the company.

As a matter of historical fact, Corporate Industrial Relation’s

fundamental initiative, whether a work force is unionized or not, is to pit

the young against the old, men against the women and races against each

Page 10

other. The distasteful reality of this labor management relationship

between the UAW and GM fully manifest itself in this latest example of

cooperation.

The UAW-GM highlights recently rolled out to the active workers

in GM for their vote, clearly demonstrates the main strategy of the

“Cooperation Partners.” In the highlights, they unashamedly sent a

message to the active workers voting that says, “there is no cost to the

active worker.” While at the same time, they remained silent on the fact

that real dollars will be taken (ROBBED) from the retirees who are

helpless to defend themselves from this pillaging by being denied a right

to vote on this matter.

Though it sounds in this letter that the retirees have no VOICE, that

is not absolutely true. The UAW has selected two political sycophants,

outside any political process, to be the voice of the 380,000 GM retirees

during the law suite the “Cooperation Partners” (the UAW and GM)

filed. Furthermore, they kept the names of those two retirees out of the

press until after the law suite was filed in Federal Court. This was

supposedly done to protect all retirees but in reality, it was done to give

General Motors Corporation Safe Harbor from future law suites. While

at the same time binding the retirees to an illegal negotiation (read

NLRA) as the UAW negotiated the new retirement package for retirees.

That act can only be described as a cowardly act in itself.

Finally yet importantly, it has to be said that the evil brilliance of

the UAW and GM “Cooperation Partners” to divide and conquer now

creates a two tier social structure among the retirees! By negotiating

terms that say the retirees whose monthly pensions are less than 33

dollars a month for each year of service will not have to pay any of the

premiums imposed in the new agreement is simply pitting retiree against

retiree! This is evil genius, for the “Cooperation Partners” have pitted

every one in the UAW against themselves, seniority members against

new hires, skilled members against production, active workers against

retirees and now retirees against retirees.

So what is this really all about? We have a pretty good idea! We

know General Motors needs cash. Therefore, GM’s “Cooperation

Partner” (the UAW) pursuant a partnership contract with GM better

known as the Articles of Incorporation of the “Center for Human

Page 11

Resources” Article II, makes the UAW obligated to help GM get cash

so the company will remain competitive.

Now the question becomes, where can GM get cash? The answer

lies in a term and program little known by most people; it is the

“VEBA” or Voluntary Employees’ Beneficiary Association. VEBAs

are IRS, CODE 501(c) None-Profit trusts that are designed to allow

corporations to invest money for the purpose of providing benefits to

their employees. The money for various benefits plans is raised by the

tax exempt interest earned from different investments (Stocks, Bonds

etc.). The Employee Benefits Security Administration of the DOL

(Department of Labor) has oversight of VEBAs. They are recorded

annually and are made available to the public by simply calling the

EBSA of the DOL in Washington, D.C. and requesting that information.

The old General Motors VEBA that was providing benefits to GM-

UAW employees also covered members represented by the “IUE-CWA”

“USWA” and the other three unions. Salary employees and none union

hourly employees benefits are also covered by the same VEBA. When

a company combines more than one benefits fund under the umbrella of

one great big Master trust (or VEBA) this is known as a commingled

trust. What is more, there is nothing in the law that prevents a company

from using the money in the VEBA for capital expenditures. GM

reported doing exactly that in the companies Proxy statement of 2001.

During the year 2000, General Motors raided the VEBA for over 1

billion dollars 1) for a 500 million dollar equity purchase in Suzuki (to

build a plant) and 2) for a 500 million dollar equity injection into GMAC

to show a profit that year. In other words, they looted the health care

trust to build a plant over seas and transfer money from our healthcare

VEBA to the stockholders. All while the “Cooperation Partner”

looked the other way!

In the beginning of year 2005, General Motors was telling Wall

Street and the world they had 21 billion dollars in cash. Where was that

money? You guessed it, “in the VEBA.” In the beginning of the year

General Motors decided to take 6 billion dollars out of the VEBA to

cover three consecutive quarters of one billion dollar losses. Loses that

grew from poor sales, rebates, the employee discounts made available

to the public and massive recalls. However, during that time nobody,

Page 12

neither in General Motors or their “Cooperation Partner” (the UAW)

spoke of the VEBA.

Consequentially, General Motors and their “Cooperation Partner”

had to come up with some kind of scheme to free up that VEBA money.

Naturally, the plot was propagated in the media, newspapers across the

country and in GM and Delphi plants as “Excessive Healthcare &

Legacy Cost.”

In the media, the centerpiece of the negotiations was to find a way

to HELP UAW members, most of who never ever heard of a VEBA or

knew one existed. Who on the shop floor associates Healthcare with a

VEBA?

The cleverly designed scheme provides General Motors with the

right to absolve its existing VEBA and replace it with a new VEBA.

Clearly, new trustees, chosen from a consortium of five industrial unions

that represent GM workers, will manage the new VEBA. The member’s

benefits of those five unions were and are covered in the old and new

VEBA respectively. Interestingly enough, by transferring control of the

new VEBA over to the unions, General Motors will only have to

maintain enough money in the old VEBA to cover white-collar employ-

ees’ benefits. Why, because all the union represented workers have been

thrown out of the old VEBA and placed into the new one.

Now consider this, the old VEBA has 15 billion dollars in it while

the new VEBA will only have 1 billion dollars. Secondly, GM reported

in the news that it cost $200 millions a year to administer the old VEBA.

Common sense and logic makes it difficult to understand how workers

healthcare and legacy cost are better secured by 1 billion dollars, than

they are by 15 billion dollars. Nevertheless, the “Cooperation Part-

ners” have decided that this is what is best for the workers.

In the mean time General Motors can let the GOOD TIMES ROLL

because they have found another source of income. Obviously, it is not

from selling cars, but then again we know they do not make their

primary income from selling cars because every year they continue

loosing market share. Therefore, since there is nothing else to sell off in

GM except GMAC, which they are trying to do now, they get their

hands on at least 10 billion dollars in the old VEBA and they look

Page 13

forward to the time they sell off GMAC and maybe get another 25

billion.

Much like the automaker, the union is fast arriving at the point

where the institution, the UAW International Union, can survive maybe

with out any dues paying members at all. The latter is possible because

the UAW has alternative sources of income as well. At present day, only

one third of the UAW’s annual flat line income is generated from union

dues. The other sources of income are from interest earned off the strike

fund, retirement trust, joint funds charge backs and service charges on

those joint funds charge-backs.

General Motors on the other hand is probably walking into a $10

billion win fall they can do what they want. More importantly, GM has

absolved the company of a 25 billion dollar legacy cost. It is a great deal

for the “Cooperation Partners” but a terrible deal for the helpless

masses of retirees who have been denied any democratic input,

democratic voice, or democratic due process. Equally, it is a tragedy yet

to happen to active workers who have been duped into believing that this

negotiations is going to be NO COST to them, of course, not until such

time when workers themselves become helpless retirees.

The real tragedy is the betrayal of trust of both our members and

retirees and the very instrument that was written and designed to protect

members from this type of tyranny, “The UAW Constitution.” If you do

not feel like reading the entire book may we encourage you to read the

preamble? Moreover, if you have never read it before, you need to

NOW!

Then again we believe the actions taken during these negotiations

by the UAW International Union delivered the final blow to the Union

by driving a dividing rod through its heart and sole of the union “THE

UAW CONSTITUTION.”

Next year members will be selecting delegates who will attend the

UAW Constitutional Convention. WHY we ask? Why even hold a

Constitutional Convention? The officers of the international union have

proven they have no regard and have abandoned the principles set forth

in the constitution and lest we forget they made a solemn pledge to

uphold when they took office. Instead, the “Cooperation Partners”

choose to do as they damn well please in spite of those beautiful words

Page 14

and the intent of that book.

A lawyer and friend recently asked the following question. “Will

the UAW as we have known it be around in the next five years?” We

concurred that it would NOT! Ironically, we did not have any idea at

that moment that the end was so close at hand.

Keep in mind the “Cooperation Partners” will survive, but the

UAW as a Trade Union is already constitutionally dead.

“I never did give anybody hell, I just told the truth and they thought

it was hell.” Harry S. Truman

GM Buyouts No ‘Christmas in March’

Media coverage and Internet dialogue key to

empowering workers

by Ronda Hauben

If one were to look at some of the headlines in the U.S. press on

March 23, the day after General Motors made an announcement to offer

buyouts and early retirement to its hourly workforce, it might have

seemed as if U.S. auto workers had a reason to celebrate Christmas in

March. Headlines like “Generous GM,” “In the Giving Spirit,” “Take

the Money and Run” appeared in the pages of newspapers around the

country.

Other articles, like one in The Washington Post, raised the spectra

of the previous “good years.” The article explained, “The surprise here

is not that the golden era for autoworkers has come to an end but that it

lasted as long as it did.”

“A Gleam of Hope for GM” was the headline in the Business Week

article announcing the recent GM moves. “The automaker has cut a deal

– a very generous one – with the UAW that could put it on the road for

lower costs.”

The writer explained how GM announced an early

retirement plan for its hourly workers that would let them retire, with a

certain incentive payment, depending on years of service, or just take a

Page 15

lay off, and be paid a lump sum payment. This the article tells us, will

allow GM, and the parts company, Delphi, which GM spun off as a

separate company, to substantially cut their hourly work force.

An online Web site noted that Google recorded 1,325 news stories

about the GM/Delphi early retirement and buyout program.

Despite the

large number of news organizations covering this announcement,

however, there has been little serious analysis in the mainstream media

of the importance of what is happening or of its implications.

While most of the mainstream press carried articles expressing

relief that the GM and Delphi corporations had found a way to lower the

wages they pay to workers, there is another view of what is happening

that has gotten little attention in the U.S. press.

In one of the rare articles raising a different viewpoint, Robert

Kuttner writes in the Boston Globe:

“Who would make the cars? A new generation of lower-paid

workers. It is a mark of GM’s fragility that the UAW considers

this about the best deal the union can get.”

Kuttner notes that, “labor costs are actually about $10 an hour

higher in Germany” than in the U.S., and yet the problem that GM is

having doesn’t seem to be a problem for the German auto makers. He

proposes that the problem isn’t workers’ wages, but something else.

What is wrong, he writes, is “management thinking and...the official

free-market ideology.”

Irrespective of the buyout and early retirement plan, Delphi has set

March 30 as the deadline when it must have an agreement with the

UAW or it threatens that it will file a motion on March 31 to void its

contract with the UAW. A press release at the Delphi Web site an-

nounced:

“Delphi will continue talks in an effort to achieve a compre-

hensive agreement no later than March 30, 2006. Absent

agreement with all parties, Delphi will file no later than March

31, 2006 its motion under Sections 1113 and 1114 of the U.S.

Bankruptcy Code to initiate the process of seeking court

authorization to reject the collective bargaining agreements and

terminate hourly post-retirement health plans and life insur-

ance.”

Page 16

Delphi is the largest auto parts company in the world. It employs

185,000 worldwide. In the U.S. it employs 50,000, with 33,650 of these

employees are hourly workers.

In Mexico, Delphi employs over 70,000

workers.

In 1998, GM was encouraged by Wall Street analysts to take its

parts operation and spin it off into a separate company.

Given the size and the international scope of Delphi, there are

serious questions raised about why it is declaring bankruptcy in its North

American operations, but is allowed to continue its operations outside

of North America without any effect of the bankruptcy declaration.

Among the workers who are affected by the Delphi bankruptcy,

there is the suspicion that the bankruptcy is but a ploy to rid itself of a

unionized workforce.

The response to the proposed buy out among many of the workers

is confusion about whether it will benefit them to take it. Among the

dissident workers, however, the issue raised is how the buyout will

affect the future of labor in the U.S. and the living standard of the

workers who follow them into the factories and other large corporations.

The dissident workers don’t attribute the gains made by workers at

companies like GM or Delphi to the generosity of the companies.

Instead, as one worker explains, “The only thing we’ve ever been

‘given’ by the corporation is what they gave up when we had one hand

twisted in their collar and the other hand ready to slap them down.”

The fact that there are negotiations going on even though there has

not been a membership decision to reopen the union contract, strikes

some workers as an ominous sign. If they take early retirement, what is

to guarantee them that they will get the retirement benefits they are

promised. “No amount of concessions will ever appease them,” is a view

that is voiced about why it is a dead end for workers to go along with the

early retirement proposed packages or the contract the UAW is

negotiating with Delphi. A strategy of giving concessions, some workers

claim, will only lead to more and more demands by the company. “No

one should be negotiating in the middle of a contract,” is a feeling that

is expressed.

The fact that the early retirement offer is being agreed to by the

UAW without consulting the membership and having a vote by the

Page 17

UAW membership, is seen as a confirmation of the loss of membership

control over what the union officials do. This leaves out any role for the

rank and file and their concerns.

Workers at Delphi or who are supporting the dissidents in UAW to

oppose the anti-democratic means that the UAW is using, are looking

back at the 1936-37 sit down strike and the militant tradition of the

UAW.

Another important aspect of UAW history which is less well

known, however, is the tradition of recognizing the need for a press

which allows for debate among the rank and file on the issues that affect

them. One auto worker, Carl Johnson, often explained the importance of

such a press in a column he wrote in his local union newspaper, “The

Searchlight,” which was the official union newspaper of the Chevrolet

Engine Plant in Flint, Michigan. Sit down strikers like Carl Johnson, and

his son Kermit Johnson, who was one of the leaders of the Plant 4 sit

down, had been part of the actions of 1936-1937 which made it possible

to win the UAW.

In the years following the victory of the Flint Sit Down Strike, Carl

Johnson advocated the need for an uncensored press for workers, a press

that would make it possible to debate the issues important to the rank

and file.

Johnson explained the need to welcome all from the ranks of labor

to be part of the discussion. He wrote:

“But who, from the ranks of Labor? Let them all speak –

that’s what Free Speech was intended for! Let them all present

their view in a forum. From that the reader will have a fair

chance to decide.” (October 29, 1949, “The Searchlight”)

Johnson felt that most of the institutions in society during this

period were controlled by the large corporations and so a press that

could be independent was needed. He writes:

“We must bare in mind the obvious fact that our education

institutions, the schools, the Daily press, the radio, etc. are all

controlled by Big Business – by that small section of the

population which suffers little from the hardships of depression

and war.” (March 1, 1945, The Searchlight)

He was not proposing a press that would be dominated by officials

of the international union. Instead, the involvement and participation of

Page 18

the rank and file were critical to the vision Johnson had for such a press

if it were to help to set a basis for democratic decision-making and

actions. He writes:

“The rank and file...have nothing to lose by advancing ideas

and opinions which may, for the time being, be at variance with

popular concepts. Moreover, a rank and filer with ideas of

change which promise greatly improved conditions for him as

well as for his fellow workers has therein the necessary

incentive to express those ideas. It is important to understand,

therefore, that the future welfare of the rank and file depends

largely upon the part the ranks play in shaping that future....”

(January 11, 1951, The Searchlight, These are excerpts are

from “The Searchlight: the Voice of the Chevy Worker.”)

The importance that Carl Johnson and other UAW pioneers attached

to discussion and debate among the rank and file became embodied in

the way they structured their local union newspapers. One such

newspaper, The Searchlight, the local union newspaper of UAW Local

659, in Flint, Michigan, was censored by the International Union in

1949/1950 and took up a fight against that censorship at the 1951 UAW

convention. Losing their fight against the censorship, however, made it

more difficult for them to carry on their program of continuing their

fight for gains for labor.

Today, with the Internet, there is a new form of media making it

possible to discuss and debate how to respond to the actions of corpora-

tions like Delphi and GM. The discussion on some online forums,

newsgroups, and web sites recognizes that the effort to understand the

problem that the Delphi bankruptcy poses is not one that can be solved

quickly. Its not like “instant coffee” but more like understanding the

need to plant “seeds” and “nurture the fruit.”

NOTES

1. “Laying to Rest a ‘Generous’ Way of Life” The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/25/AR2006032500

097.html

2. News & Features, By David Welch, Business Week March 24, 2006

http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/mar2006/bw20060323_907896.htm?ch

Page 19

an=autos_autos+index+page_ autos+lede

3. From the Archives, Auto News, Thursday, March 23, 2006

4. Robert Kuttner, “Making U.S. Manufacturing Work” Boston Globe, March 25, 2006

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/03/25/making_us_manufacturing_work/

5.Delphi Docket (PDF)

http://delphidocket.com/documents/0544481/0544481060217000000000001.pdf

6. Critical Moment, January 26, 2006, “The Worker’s Docket: A Summary of Facts and

Ideas from the Delphi closings by Fred David” http://criticalmoment.org/node/91/

7. Detroit Free Press, “Time Line of GM and Delphi’s Travails,” March 23, 2006.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006603230498

8. Michael Hauben, “In Celebration: A Past To Remember, A Future To Mold: The 50

Anniversary Of The Flint Sit-Down Strike”

http://www.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/michael/flint.txt

9. Ronda Hauben, “The Story of the Searchlight”

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/searchlight/sl.1.txt

10. Some online forums and Web sites include: UAW forum Delphi Bankruptcy

Discussion;

http://www.uawforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3

http://futureoftheunion.com/

Newsgroups on Usenet:

alt.society.labor-unions

soldiersofsolidarity

[Editor’s note: The following article tells the story of the first protests

in France which led one month later to the withdrawal of the new labor

law against which the students and workers were protesting.]

French Youth Up in Arms Over New

Labor Law

‘First Employment Contract’ Gives Employer Right to

Fire Indiscriminately

By Ronda Hauben

The demonstrations in Paris in May 1968 have become a symbol of

Page 20

the protest movement that swept the globe in the 1960s. The massive

demonstrations on March 7, 2006 in 160 towns and cities in France, and

the subsequent student strikes and university occupations and demon-

strations, planned or in process, have raised the question as to whether

these recent protests will lead to a similar social unrest as occurred in the

1960s.

On March 7, up to a million people in France demonstrated in

opposition to the French government’s plan to pass a new law that was

then in the French Senate. The law has come to be known as CPE, the

“Contrat Premiere Embauche”; in English, the “First Employment

Contract.” Despite the protest, the government passed the bill the next

day so that it is now a law. The law was passed in a way that sidestepped

the debate and discussion that is a traditional part of the legislative

process in France.

This law applies to those under 26 years of age who find a new job.

It gives the employer the right to terminate the new hire’s employment

within two years without having to give any reason. Under French law,

the employer has only a month to terminate the employment of a new

employee who is 26 or older without having to provide a reason. After

that, French labor law provides protection for the employee so that

employment isn’t ended without objective cause.

Does Electoral Politics Fit Democracy?

The unemployment rate in France is an estimated 10 percent of the

French workforce. This includes an estimated 20 percent of young

people who do not have jobs. There have been various proposals offered

for how to lower this high rate of unemployment. One such proposal is

to make it possible for those in the current workforce to retire earlier

than presently possible in order to open jobs for those who are currently

unemployed.

The new law, however, takes a very different approach to the high

rate of youth unemployment. It is based on an initiative introduced by

the French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin. It provides that those

under 26 who work for companies with more than 20 employees can be

dismissed from their employment in the first two years without any

reason given for their termination. Students and others who oppose the

Page 21

law say that this treats them in a discriminatory way. Not only is it

normally difficult to get a job, but under this new law, an employer will

have an incentive to end a young worker’s employment before the two

years are up and hire another employee who is under 26. For those

seeking jobs who are 26 or over, this new law provides an incentive for

employers to give preference to younger workers who can be hired and

then fired as a new form of temporary employment.

Last August a similar French law was put into effect by Executive

Mandate that applied only to employers with fewer than 20 paid

employees. Under this law, known as the CNE, (in French “Contrat

Nouvelle Embauche”) a small employer can hire and dismiss people

before they have worked for the employer for two years without having

to provide a reason for the dismissal. There are many instances of

workers protesting that they lost their jobs unfairly under this law. The

very competitive pressures that leads employers to desire such flexibility

to fire at will, also is a pressure on the employer to terminate a new

worker before the two years are up and to hire someone else who is not

covered by the labor laws. The new labor law, the CPE, is modeled on

the CNE, but applies to larger employers.

The French Senate passed the CPE in a hurried way and at night, on

March 8 and 9, cutting short debate using a special procedure known as

Article 49.3 of the French Constitution. Students, student organizations,

and other young people across France were dismayed by the prospects

of having to work under the conditions provided by the new law. French

labor unions also oppose the new law, along with the Socialist Party and

other parties, including the Green Party.

In response to the French government passing the law after the large

protest demonstrations, there were student strikes and sit-ins at universi-

ties around France, including at the Sorbonne University in Paris. An

estimated 600 students were part of the occupation of the Sorbonne on

Friday, March 10. Other students demonstrated in the streets surround-

ing the Sorbonne to support the sit-in. Early Saturday morning, about 4

a.m., however, the police forcibly ejected those who were still occupy-

ing the university.

Dismay has been expressed by those who oppose the CPE that the

police forcibly broke up a peaceful protest and entered a university.

Page 22

Students vow to continue the struggle to get the law changed. Continu-

ing demonstrations and student strikes are planned, including a

demonstration for March 16, and another one on March 18.

Press reports about the demonstrations describe how students are

not only frustrated by the law, but even more so by the lack of response

from the government to their protests. One student complained, “We feel

we have the support of the people in the street but that the government

just doesn’t care.”

Others explain that they escalated their protest to a

sit-in because they were enraged that the government passed the new

law disregarding the massive demonstrations against it.

Students describe how they feel they have no means to influence the

decisions made by the government. At the heart of the discontent is

dissatisfaction with the lack of democratic processes that made it

possible for the French government to impose such an unpopular law on

French citizens.

This problem of a disconnect between the citizens and their

government is being expressed in other European countries, not only in

France. In the recent German election, many were unhappy with the

Hartz IV labor laws that the German government is instituting to take

away the social benefits that German workers have felt important to

maintain. Since both of the main political parties supported the Hartz IV

laws, it was difficult for those opposed to them to express their

dissatisfaction in the election and to find a way through the election to

make a change in government policy regarding the new labor laws.

Similarly, in Great Britain, there is widespread discontent about

various aspects of the British government’s programs and policies.

Elections there also do not provide a means for expressing this dissatis-

faction, as a recent research study published in Great Britain demon-

strates.

The report, “Power: An Independent Inquiry into Britain’s Democ-

racy,” (http://www.powerinquiry .org/report/index.php) was published

at the end of February, 2006. It is the result of research funded by the

Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Reform

Trust, Ltd., which supports research “promoting democratic reform,

constitutional change and social justice.” The researchers explain that,

“The POWER Inquiry was set up in 2004 to explore how political

Page 23

participation and involvement can be increased and deepened in

Britain.” The product of their research is a harsh critique of the failure

in Great Britain of any means for citizens to participate in the decisions

that affect their lives. The report suggests that elections are not playing

this role. This problem is not peculiar to Great Britain, but the “majority

of the established democracies are facing similar problems despite the

differences in their recent political and economic histories and the

variations in their constitutional arrangements,” the report explains.

What the report documents is that there is widespread recognition

among the citizenry that their views and desires are not part of the

political processes, nor are they of interest to the politicians who make

the decisions. Citizens, especially those who are better informed via the

Internet, feel the need more than ever to have their views taken into

consideration by the government officials who make decisions.

However, these decisions are being made in ways that exclude citizens

more than ever before. Essentially, citizens are being “evicted” from the

political processes.

The report includes a set of recommendations about what is needed

to change the situation. The researchers plan to hold a conference to

discuss the report, its implications and recommendations it contains. But

the significance of the report is that it documents how the discontent

being expressed in the streets, and on university campuses in France in

response to the new labor law, is part of a widespread failure of

governments to provide for the democratic needs and desires of their

citizens. The same was seen in 2003 when millions of people in the U.S.

and elsewhere expressed opposition to any invasion of Iraq. The Bush

regime went ahead anyway.

The government processes ongoing in France are an example of the

broader problem, that the Power Commission identified, a problem that

demonstrates that there is a fundamental flaw in how countries like

France, Great Britain, Germany and the U.S. claim to practice democ-

racy. The problem is decreasing means for citizens to influence the

decisions that effect their lives.

In 1968, a similar problem resulted in widespread unrest and mass

movements to try to correct the injustices and the lack of democratic

processes available to citizens. The events unfolding in France today,

Page 24

reinforced by the problems described in the report published in Great

Britain, demonstrate that there is a need for change in the democratic

decision making practices of the countries with some of the most praised

traditions of democracy. The problem of extending the democratic

processes practiced by governments is a problem still to be solved. The

French students and the French labor movement are actively protesting

the actions of the French government and fighting for more democratic

political processes.

1. Angelique Chrisafis, French students revive spirit of 68, The

Guardian, March 10, 2006.

First NYC Transit Strike in 25 Years

Workers Object to Lower Pension Benefits for New

Hires, Despite $1 Billion Surplus

by Ronda Hauben

At 3:05 a.m. on Dec. 20, 2005 Roger Toussaint, the President of the

New York Transit Workers Union (TWU) announced that the transit

workers who operate the New York City buses and subways, were on

strike. This is the first transit strike in New York City in the past 25

years. The last strike lasted 11 days and was in 1980.

Toussaint said that the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA),

which is in charge of the transit system, has a $1 billion surplus.

Yet the

contract offer the MTA made provides little of a wage increase and is a

contractual cutback in health and pension benefits, as new hires would

be required to pay more for their benefits.

An important issue that caused the strike is that the MTA contract

offer would pay new hires lower pension benefits. This is a strategy to

divide the union and weaken it by creating a two-tier system, with one

set of workers having better benefits than another set. Also such a

Page 25

system provides a material incentive for management to harass older

workers and to try to get rid of them, so as to replace them with

lower-paid employees. A serious grievance of transit workers is that they

are already subjected to unjust disciplinary actions by management.

Against the more then 33,000 transit workers there are perhaps 15,000

outstanding disciplinary actions being contested by the union.

“This is a fight over whether hard work will be rewarded with

a decent retirement – over the erosion or eventual elimination

of health benefit coverage for working people,” said Toussaint.

The President of the Transport Workers Union of American, the

parent union of the TWU, is reported to have said he wasn’t in support

of the strike and that the union should return to the bargaining table

instead of striking. Without a strike, though, workers felt there was not

much of a reason for the MTA to change the hardball tactics they were

using against the workers. Toussaint explained:

“The MTA knew that reducing health and pension standards at

the authority would be unacceptable to our union. They knew

there was no good economic reason for their hard line on this

issue – not with a billion dollar surplus. They went ahead

anyway.”

The Mayor of New York City and the Governor of New York State

have encouraged the hardline tactics of the MTA rather than supporting

a serious effort to settle the contract dispute.

The Union initially asked for an 8% wage increase each year, but

reduced that to 6%. But they were committed to maintaining the same

pension benefits for new hires as for older workers.

A small wage increase of 3%, 4% and 3-1/2% in the three years of

the contract was offered but as the new hires would have to pay more for

their pensions, this would effectively give them an even lower wage than

other union workers.

A rally was held on Monday in support of the transit workers. Some

of the issues raised by transit workers as problems they have been faced

with include the closing of toll booths and the reassignment of workers

to cleaning and other chores, the large number of disciplinary actions

against workers, and the proposal to eliminate the conductor on trains

who is there to monitor what is happening with the train and the

Page 26

passengers.

The sentiment among union members in the city is that they are fed

up with management insisting on “givebacks” and continually cutting

workers’ wages and benefits. Other unions said they would do what they

could to support the transit workers.

There is a law called the Taylor Law which prohibits public

employees in New York State from striking. The MTA has gotten a

preliminary injunction from the New York State Supreme Court that will

allow it to impose large fines on the union, and fine each worker two

days pay for each day they strike. Also, New York City Mayor

Bloomberg has filed a lawsuit asking that the workers be fined $25,000

each day they strike.

The transit workers feel that if they don’t stand up for better

working conditions when there is a surplus in the budget, that they will

only be agreeing to ever worsening working conditions. The transit

workers are in a stronger position than other workers in the city in terms

of their ability to fight for better conditions not only because of the MTA

surplus but also because of the crucial role transportation plays in the

life as such a big city.

If they win the strike, that is a support for other workers in their

fight for higher wages and better working conditions. If the transit

workers agree to accept cutbacks in their benefits and even poorer

working conditions, that encourages other employers to lower wages and

benefits.

The transit workers did not want to strike. They had let the deadline

for the strike on Thursday pass, and continued to try to negotiate. The

response of the MTA, however, was to continue to demand cutbacks

from the union. The transit workers have called on all in the city to

recognize their importance of the strike and “to rally in solidarity to

show that the TWU doesn’t stand alone.”

Notes:

1. The MTA has a history of hiding their surpluses and keeping different sets of books.

See for example:

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/apr03/042303.htm

2. http://twulocal100.blogspot.com/2005/12/toussaint-twu-local-100-on-strike.html

3. See http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2005/12/62121.html

Page 27

4. The web site for the union is: http://www.twulocal 100.org The web site for the

MTA is:

http://www.mta.info/

This article appears in Telepolis and is reprinted with their permission.

[Editor’s note: The following talk was presented at the XXII Interna-

tional Congress of History of Science in Beijing China on July 26, 2005.

The symposium it was part of was the first international symposium

focusing on netizens that we have heard of.]

The International and Scientific

Origins of the Internet and the

Emergence of the Netizens

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

“Netizens are Net Citizens who utilize the Net from their

home, workplace, school, library, etc. These people are among

those who populate the Net, and make it a resource of human

beings. These netizens participate to help make the Net both an

intellectual and a social resource.”

from “Further Thoughts about Netizens”

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netizens/tunis-ppf/RHauben.txt

I am happy to be here today and to be the first paper in this

symposium. The symposium is titled “Computer Networks, the Internet

and Netizens: Their Impact on Science and Society”

It is an honor to have this symposium in Asia, in Beijing, as new

and important developments regarding the Internet are being explored

by netizens in Korea, China and other countries in East Asia. Also this

is a period when the future of the Internet and its development is being

contested. There is a struggle ongoing between the U.S. government and

a number of countries around the world who are meeting under the

Page 28

sponsorship of the UN’s World Summit on Information Society (WSIS)

to try to determine the management model that is needed for the

international administration of the Internet’s infrastructure. But to solve

a problem like this it is useful to have some idea of how the Internet was

developed and what are the salient aspects of that development.

In my talk today, I want to explore these aspects and in turn try to

unravel some of the myths about the Internet and its origins that hide its

actual character. I have a draft paper I have prepared where I explore the

issues in greater detail that I will speak about today.

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netizens/tunis-ppf/RHauben.txt

First, a common view of the Internet is that it was created within the

U.S. by the U.S. Department of Defense as a way to have a communica-

tion system that would survive a nuclear war. This is a fallacious view

of the origin of the Internet. It is inaccurate in many aspects.

Notably:

1) The Internet was created as a scientific research project by an open

and international research process, not as a secret Department of

Defense product-oriented development.

2) The Internet is an international and not an American creation. Though

many American researchers did critical work to develop the Internet, the

research was part of the activity of an international research community.

3) The goal of Internet research was to create a means to make commu-

nication possible across the boundaries of different networks. During the

period of the birth of the Internet (1973-1983), countries like Great

Britain, France, Canada and others were either actually creating their

own national or specific computer networks, or were developing plans

to do so. These networks would all be different technically and would

be owned and operated by different political and administrative entities.

How to provide for communication across the boundaries of these

diverse networks was the problem to be solved.

In my paper I go into greater detail about the process of creating the

protocol TCP/IP to make it possible to communicate across the

boundaries of dissimilar networks. I show a graphic of the research

collaboration by Norwegian researchers connected with NORSA

(NORwegian Seismic ARray). Actually the research organization was

the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (NDRE, “Forsvarets

Page 29

Forskningsinstitutt”), British researchers connected with University

College London, and American researchers working as part of the

Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) at ARPA.

But for my talk today I want to focus on what I propose are some of

the scientific origins of the research that have made the Internet possible.

And I want to argue that it is these scientific origins, which are poorly

understood and not often recognized, but that are at the essence of the

nature of the Internet.

To understand these scientific origins of the Internet’s development,

I want to step back to the early post World War II period. During this

period there was a scientific ferment to understand the science of

communication. A community of scientists, mathematicians, engineers

and social scientists were interested in exploring the processes of

communication. One means they adopted was to participate in an

interdisciplinary community of researchers who met bi-yearly or yearly.

Essentially the researchers pursued different disciplines and spoke

different scientific languages.

Their effort was to try to bridge the boundaries that separated their

disciplines. The meetings of the group were known by different names,

but during one period they were called the Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation

conferences on Cybernetics (also known as “feedback” or “self

organizing systems”).

J. C. R. Licklider (or Lick as he asked people to call him) was a

research scientist who had made certain scientific advances in communi-

cation research. His Ph.D. thesis broke new ground by mapping where

in the brain of the cat, different pitches of sound were received and how

this led to the perception of different frequencies of sound.

Also Licklider had made an engineering breakthrough which is

referred to as “clipped speech.” He was able to identify what small part

of the place on the sound wave was critical for the sound to be per-

ceived. (This was helpful to the U.S. military during WWII in identify-

ing how pilots could get help hearing vital sounds despite lots of

background noise.)

Licklider was deeply interested in the study of communication.

Though he only attended one of the 10 Macy Foundation meetings on

Cybernetics, he, along with other scientists, received support from the

Page 30

National Science Foundation(NSF) in the U.S. to have a meeting in 1954

at MIT similar to the Macy Foundation meetings on Cybernetics that

ended in 1953. The title of the conference was “Problems in Human

Communication and Control.” The notes of the meeting were then

transcribed. Licklider edited the notes. The proceedings was published,

much in the same way the Macy Conference proceedings were pub-

lished.

An important interest of Licklider’s was in the workings of the brain

and how more advanced computer development could help the research

collaboration of scientists and engineers. Of particular interest was a

form of modeling. In a paper written with Robert Taylor in 1968,

Licklider and Taylor wrote:

“By far the most numerous, most sophisticated and most

important models are those that reside in men’s minds.”

An example of how the computer could help represent models for

Licklider was the program Sketchpad created by Ivan Sutherland.

Describing a demonstration he had seen of Sutherland’s modeling

program, Warren Teitelman, then a graduate student at MIT, writes:

“Sutherland sketched the girder of a bridge and indicated

the points at which members were connected together by rivets.

He drew a support at each end of the girder and a load at the

center. The model showed the girder sagging under the load

and a number appeared on each member showing the tensions

there.”

Sutherland was able to add the support needed using the modeling

program. Then the bridge was, according to the computer simulation

program, able to maintain its weight. This is an example of the encour-

aging potential that Licklider envisioned if the scientific research

community could acquire the technology they needed for their modeling.

Licklider not only felt that modeling was critical for scientific

research, but for society as well. Describing the modeling that Licklider

believed characterized the functioning of the brain, he and Taylor write:

“In richness, plasticity, facility and economy, the mental

model has no peer, but in other respects it has shortcomings.”

The primary shortcomings of such a model is that is that it is stored

in the brain of only a single individual. Hence:

Page 31

“It can be observed and manipulated only by one person”

In order for such models to serve a social function, there is a need,

as Licklider and Taylor explain, for the models in the head of individuals

to become part of a collaborative process. They explain:

“Society rightly distrusts the modeling done by a single

mind.”

More specifically:

“Society demands (...) [what -ed] amounts to the require-

ment that individual models be compared and brought into

some degree of accord. The requirement for communicating

which we now define concisely [as -ed] ‘cooperative’ modeling

– [is -ed] cooperation in the construction, maintenance and use

of a model”

Licklider and Taylor then explain that like the process they believe

is ongoing in the brain, what is needed for such cooperative modeling is:

“a plastic or moldable medium that can be modeled, a

dynamic medium in which processes will flow into conse-

quences.”

Most important for such a medium is that it supports collaborative

contributions and processes – that it be:

“a common medium that can be contributed to and

experimented with by all.”

Licklider and Taylor envisioned that the developing online

community would find the capability for such collaborative modeling as

the Internet developed and that having access to this plastic collaborative

environment would be a boon to the advancement of society and of

science.

Along with the need for such a moldable medium for scientific

collaborative development, Licklider also maintained that there would

be a need for a collaborative community with the capability to support

continuing network development and to intervene to help with the

problems that would develop when government officials who didn’t

understand the nature of computer technology, would be charged with

making the decisions needed for its development.

Licklider was part of a community of scientists who had seen poor

technical and political decisions made by governments. (For example the

Page 32

bombing of civilians during WWII by the Allies). At a series of talks

held to celebrate the 100

anniversary of MIT, the British scientist, civil

servant, and writer, C. P. Snow, was invited to give a talk on “Scientists

and Decision Making.”

During his talk, Snow described the gap that would exist between

understanding the nature of the new computer technology that was being

developed and the understanding of government officials who would

have the responsibility for the decisions about how to support the

development of computer technology. Snow explained how such a

problem required a situation similar to a phenomenon that in physics is

called Brownian Motion. Referring to what happened in Great Britain

after World War II when the whole society began discussing the need

for national health care, Snow outlines this phenomenon:

“I believe that the healthiest decisions of society occur by

something more like Brownian movement. All kinds of people

all over the place suddenly get smitten with the same sort of

desire, with the same sort of interest at the same time. This

forms a concentration of pressure and of direction. These

concentrations of pressure gradually filter their way through to

the people whose nominal responsibility it is to put the

legislation into a written form.”

You may notice, perhaps, that this description by C. P. Snow of a

form of Brownian Motion for society, sounds similar in some ways to

the concept of the ‘public sphere’ that the German philosopher Jurgen

Habermas explores in his writing.

Shortly after the talks for the MIT centennial, Licklider was invited

to join the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) to set up an

office for research in computer science and an office for research in

behavioral science. The office for research in computer science he called

the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO). (1962-1986).

Licklider was its first director and he was followed by Ivan Sutherland.

There were several subsequent directors, and then in 1974, Licklider was

invited to return as director.

In his writing and talks after he left the IPTO in 1975, Licklider

describes the problems he encountered to get support for basic research

in computer science within the U.S. Department of Defense and the need

Page 33

for citizens who will actively take up the effort to deal with the problems

when they develop.

Licklider is not asking for citizens to vote on every issue. Instead he

outlines how voting is insufficient as a way to work to promote the

public interest. He writes:

“(V)oting in the absence of understanding defines only the

public attitude, not the public interest. It means that many

public spirited individuals must study, model, analyze, argue,

write, criticize, and work out each issue and each problem until

they reach consensus or determine that none can be reached –

at which point there may be occasion for voting.”

(Licklider, 1979, p. 126)

Licklider describes the need for citizen involvement in government

decisions to help determine how to support the continuing development

of computer technology. More significantly, Licklider proposes that

people will not be interested in government processes until they have a

means to participate in those processes. He foresees how computer

developments will provide that means. He writes:

“Computer power to the people is essential to the realiza-

tion of a future in which most citizens are informed about, and

interested in, the process of government.”

(Licklider, 1979, p. 126)

The process for citizen involvement in the development of computer

technology that Licklider outlines is a process that characterizes the kind

of discussion that I found on some of the earliest mailing lists and

Usenet newsgroups that developed in the early 1980s. This process

functioned for needed technical discussion, such as with the ARPAnet

TCP/IP Digest when the cut-over to TCP/IP was carried out. (See Ronda

Hauben, “A Study of the ARPAnet TCP/IP Digest and of the Role of

Online Communication in the Transition from the ARPAnet to the

Internet,”

http://umcc.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/tcpdraft.txt)

Such discussion also helped to develop and spread the vision for

ubiquitous computer networking that was discussed on the Human Nets

mailing list and other mailing lists and Usenet newsgroups during the

early 1980s. But more fundamentally, the emergence of a public spirited

online citizenry that Licklider believed so important to the continued

Page 34

support and development of computer and networking technology was

identified through the research done by a college student in the early

1990s.

In 1992-3, as part of research done for a college assignment, the

student, Michael Hauben, posted a series of questions and some

preliminary research about the developing network on Usenet news-

groups. (Usenet is a worldwide discussion forum.) He also posted his

questions on a few Internet mailing lists. Michael was surprised as

replies to his questions began to arrive in his mailbox. Through

subsequent posts, and analyzing the replies he received, he recognized

that a new form of consciousness, a new identity was being acquired by

many of those who wrote to him. In my paper, I describe how a number

of the replies Michael received indicated how people online were not

only interested in how the developing Net was contributing to their own

lives, but also many were seeking to spread access to the Internet to

others.

Michael had seen the word ‘net.citizen’ referred to online. Thinking

about the social concern and consciousness he had found among those

who wrote to him, and about the non-geographical character of a net

based form of citizenship, he contracted ‘net.citizen’ into the word

‘netizen’. Netizen has come to reflect the online social identity Michael

discovered doing his research.

Michael wrote a paper he titled, “The Net and Netizens: The Impact

the Net has on People’s Lives” describing the research he had done and

the contributions he received from many parts of the world. Michael’s

research was done in 1992-1993 just at the time that the Internet was

spreading to countries and networks around the world which were

becoming connected to the Internet. He posted his paper on Usenet and

several Internet mailing lists on July 6, 1993 in 4 parts under the title

“Common Sense: The Net and Netizens: the Impact the Net is having on

people’s lives.” People around the world wrote Michael that they found

his paper of interest and the term netizen quickly spread, not only in the

online world, but soon began appearing in newspapers and other

publications offline.

Michael continued to do research into the history and impact of the

Internet, and to post his articles online. During this period I collaborated

Page 35

with Michael, also doing research and writing that was posted online.

People who found our writing of interest suggested we gather them into

a book. We collected our papers into an online book title “Netizens and

the Wonderful World of the Net” which was put online in January 1994.

Netizens, as Michael wrote, are those who embodied the social

conscious and public purpose similar to that which Lickldier had

considered important for the continued development of computer

technology and of the public policy to support that development.

Michael was invited to speak at a conference in Beppu Bay in Japan

in November 1995. In his speech he explained why he felt it was

important to distinguish between the more general usage the media has

promoted, that anyone online is a netizen, and the usage that the he had

introduced, reserving the title ‘netizen’ for the online user who actively

participates to make the net and the world it is part of a better place. He

explained:

“Netizens...are people who understand it takes effort and

action on each and everyone’s part to make the Net a regenera-

tive and vibrant community and resource. Netizens are people

who decide to devote time and effort into making the Net, this

new part of our world, a better place.”

Michael Hauben, talk given on November 24, 1995 at the

Hypernetwork ‘95, Beppu Bay Conference in Beppu, Japan.

The theme of the conference was “The Netizen Revolution and

the Regional Information Infrastructure.”

Individuals from around the world adopted and helped to spread the

consciousness and identity of the netizen. A specially interesting

development at the present time are the netizens of South Korea.

South Korea is one of the most wired nations in the world. Over

70% of the population has access to high speed Internet. Along with the

spread of high speed Internet access in Korea is the development of

netizenship among the Korean population. I document some of the

significant aspects of this development in my conference paper.

In a way that is similar to how Michael described the interactive,

collaborative online processes that he and those who wrote him in the

early 1990s, researchers in South Korea are documenting similar

processes and the impact of netizens on Korean society. One particularly

Page 36

interesting aspect of these developments is that online processes are

being adopted by formerly offline institutions and that online clubs have

developed offline organizational forms as well.

Also these researchers document how online collaborative discus-

sion processes among Korean netizens are creating the kinds of

collaborative social models that Licklider believed were needed for

scientific and social advancement.

Implications and Research Questions Raised

The online plastic collaboration which makes possible interactive

modeling that Licklider and Taylor describe in their 1968 paper is a

helpful analogy through which to view the online world that has evolved

as the Internet has developed and spread around the world. The social

consciousness of users as online citizens, as netizens has also evolved

and spread.

In this symposium today we will hear other talks which will explore

or differ with the framework I am proposing.

I want to argue for the need for specific studies, whether historical

or contemporaneous, of how the interactive collaborative modeling that

licklider proposed as essential to further social and scientific develop-

ment of technology is being explored via the Internet. Also I want to

propose the need to bring this area of study into the public policy

activities of those who are trying to contribute to the continued

development of the Internet and the management of its infrastructure.

For example, the WSIS meetings being held in conjunction with the UN

demonstrate the need for an appropriate model for the management of

the Internet’s infrastructure. But outdated models that developed prior

to the Internet are dominating the discourse among those involved in the

WSIS process.

There are a number of other research questions that arise from my

paper and study. I hope those interested in these issues will find a way

to continue the discussion begun in this symposium after the Congress

as well.

Page 37

[Editor’s note: The following biography by Simon Butler appeared as

part of the 250

birthday celebration for Columbia University.]

Michael Hauben: Sketch for

250

Birthday of Columbia University

“I like to think of you as a netizen.”

While the prevalence and universality of the Internet today may lead

some to take it for granted, Michael Hauben did not. A pioneer in the

study of the Internet’s impact on society, Hauben helped identify the

collaborative nature of the Internet and its effects on the global com-

munity. Credited with coining and popularizing the term netizen (net +

citizen), Hauben, with his mother, Ronda, co-wrote the seminal

Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet (IEEE

Computer Society Press, 1997), which outlined the growth and role of

the medium in the world and was published in both English and

Japanese.

Born on May 1, 1973, in Boston, Michael Hauben was an early

participant in electronic bulletin boards. He graduated from Columbia

University in 1995 with a bachelor’s degree in computer science;

following that, he entered the program Communication, Computing and

Technology at Teacher’s College and received a master’s degree in

1997. Of particular interest to Hauben was understanding the democrati-

zation of the Internet and the participation of netizens in the global

community to build the Net. He viewed the Internet as a reflection of

democracy at work. An editor of the online newsletter “The Amateur

Michael F. Hauben (1973-2001)

Internet Pioneer, Author

Columbia College 1995,

Teachers College 1997

Page 38

Computerist,” Hauben gave talks on the Internet in locales ranging from

Beppu, Japan, to Corfu, Greece, to Montreal, Canada, to the Catskills

region in New York. After sustaining injuries resulting from an accident

in December 1999, when he was hit by a cab, Hauben died in June 2001.

A champion of the Internet, he truly was a netizen.

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/

http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/IEC/pioneers.html

Submitted by Simon Butler, Columbia College 1995, who is solely

responsible for the content.

[Editor’s note: The following comment appeared on the weblog of Hee

Won Kim on August 5, 2005.

http://hypercortex.net/ver2/index.php?pl=4# ]

Misunderstanding about ‘Netizen’

05/08/10 00:02

The concept ‘netizen’ is very frequently used especially in Korea.

Most people, however, use the word just based on their common idea

rather than quote the concept accurately. I think people misunderstand

this important concept. The Korean word ‘nurikun(????),’ which is an

equivalent for the ‘netizen,’ proves that people don’t understand the

meaning of netizen and don’t use the concept properly. Because the

word ‘nurikun’ means ‘general internet users’ or ‘general users on the

web.’

Does it have something to do with the original meaning of netizen?

Absolutely not.

Mrs. and Mr. Hauben had visited Seoul, and they flied back to the

U.S. yesterday. I met and talked with them at a coffee shop near Yonsei

University on August 5. Their son, Michael Hauben coined the word

netizen. (His work was already quoted several times by Korean

researchers, as you know.) Nowadays Mrs. and Mr. Hauben is doing the

netizen research after their son. They told me that almost all Korean

Page 39

people identified themselves as the netizens. “Yes, I’m a netizen...!” I

agree with them. Netizens are everywhere here in Korea! (How could it

be!)

Netizen is not the word that point any casual internet users. “They

are people who understand it takes effort and action on each and

everyone’s part to make the Net a regenerative and vibrant community

and resource. Netizens are people who decide to devote time and effort

into making the Net, this new part of our world, a better place.” (by

Michael Hauben, 1995) This is a sophisticated concept. If you have the

consciousness of social/political participation and take action, you can

be a netizen. If you just enjoy web surfing, it’s very hard to say that you

are a netizen although you spend great time for the internet.

Still many people including journalists use the word netizen

carelessly. Also, ‘nurikun’ cannot show the original meaning, it’s not the

equivalent but just a new word. There are interesting cases that actualize

the power of netizens in Korea, but because of this, the concept seems

to be used excessively. You can find more about the netizen in the book:

[Netizens : On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0818677066/qid=112

3592989/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-2090333-9880743?v=glance&s=books.

You can read the full text here: Netizens: On the History and Impact of

the Net http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/.

Advancing “News Guerrillas”

OhmyNews and 21

Century Journalism

by Ronda Hauben

In his autobiography, Oh Yeon Ho, the founder and chief executive

of the Korean newspaper OhmyNews, describes how an Internet craze

gripped South Korea in 1999 when he was launching [extern]

OhmyNews. “We were late to industrialization, but let’s lead in digitaliza-

tion” was one of the slogans of the government and media at the time.

“We shall lead Korea to become an information superpower,” was

another phrase repeated during this period. This translated into web

Page 40

editions of the major Korean print newspapers. “So the closed and elitist

journalistic culture was transferred intact to the Internet,” Oh observes.

With regard to his Internet background, Oh was then “a country

bumkin.” At the time, “I wasn’t very used to technology,” he admits. He

had spent the previous 10 years, since 1989, as a journalist for the

Korean publication, the monthly Mahl, owned by the civic group, the

Citizens’ Coalition for Democratic Media. As a journalist, he gave

lectures to university students about how to become a reporter. Oh titled

his lecture, “Every citizen is a reporter.”

He was particularly concerned with the imbalance of power in the

media environment in South Korea. There were eight conservative

media organizations and only two that were progressive, the monthly

Mahl and the Hankyoreh. He noticed how the conservative media

companies in South Korea would determine what was considered news.

If a story was published in the monthly Mahl it would get little attention

by other media. If one was published by one of the conservative media

organizations, however, it would be considered news.

OhmyNews and the ‘386’

Hoping to make the South Korean media landscape more progres-

sively balanced, he put some of the money he obtained from selling his

home into capital to support the creation of the first South Korean

Internet newspaper which he decided to call “OhmyNews.” Five ‘386’

generation businessmen who sympathized with the aims of OhmyNews

also invested seed money. (The ‘386’ generation is a term used to

describe the generation that participated in the student movement of the

1980s that helped to topple the military dictatorship in South Korea).

These five and Oh were the first stockholders of OhmyNews. Oh

asked web designers he knew to write a program. By the end of 1999, he

was beta testing a new online form of newspaper. The first edition of

OhmyNews was December 21, 1999. At the time OhmyNews had a staff

of four and received twenty articles from citizen reporters. By the

official launch date, February 22, 2002 at 2:22 p.m., when the incorpora-

tion papers were signed, there were 727 citizen reporters.

His goal, Oh explains, was to create a media culture where “the

quality of news determined whether it won or lost” not the power and

Page 41

prestige of the media organization that printed the article. Fortunately,

Oh was embarking on an undertaking that would depend upon the nature

of the Internet, which provides an online environment created to be

plastic, malleable, interactive, general purpose, and which supports

collaborative efforts (see “Dawn of the Internet and Netizen”).

http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?menu=A

11100&no=242311&rel_no=1&back_url=

Every citizen is a reporter

These qualities of the Internet would help him to create an online

publication which three years later, in October 2003, would be ranked

6th in a survey of Korea’s Most Influential Media by Sisa Journal and

Media Research. OhmyNews turned a profit for the first time three years

after its birth, in 2003. Jean Min, the Director of the International

Division of OhmyNews, explains that today 70% of the funding for

OhmyNews comes from advertisements, and 30% comes from news

content sales and other sources. OhmyNews hopes this will change to a

50-50 mix to provide more stability.

The current personnel structure of OhmyNews is made up of full

time staff. There are also columnists, international correspondents, and

citizen reporters, who are not part of the paid full time staff. According

to Oh, there are currently 75 paid staff, which includes 45 reporters.

Among the reporters, 12 are editors for the submissions received from

citizen reporters. Min estimates that there are currently 39,000 citizen

reporters. Describing the thinking which led him to the concept of the

citizen reporter, Oh writes:

Every citizen is a reporter. Journalists aren’t some exotic

species, they’re everyone who seeks to take new developments,

put them into writing, and share them with others. This

common truth has been trampled on in a culture where being

a reporter is seen as something of a privilege to be enjoyed.

Privileged reporters who come together to form massive news

media wielded power over the whole process of news produc-

tion, distribution, and consumption. The seriousness of the

problem is that the massive media power is the final gutter of

Korean capitalist society. There is a lot about those media that

Page 42

is dirty, and yet they have packaged themselves as clean and

acted self-righteously towards the rest of society. We therefore

stand up to them raising high the flag of guerrilla warfare. Our

weapon is the proposition that ‘Every citizen is a reporter.’ We

intend to achieve a’News alliance of the news guerrillas.’

“The Revolt of 727 News Guerrillas: A Revolution in News Production

and Consumption.”

Explaining what he means by guerrilla warfare, Oh elaborates:

“The dictionary definition of guerrilla is ‘a member of small

non-regular armed forces who disrupt the rear positions of the

enemy.’ Citizen reporters can be called guerrillas because they

are not professional and regulars and they post news from

perspectives uniquely their own, not those of the conservative

establishment.”

Some citizen reporters write only occasionally, but others submit

articles regularly. Each day between 200 and 250 articles are submitted

to the newspaper. Oh explains that about 70% of these will be published.

The website is changed daily, and sometimes several times a day. The

staff decides on the placement of the articles, whether they are to appear

on the front page, or in one of the sections. Articles that appear on the

main page of the website, or that are listed in the index of new articles

on the front page, are likely to get more public attention than articles that

are in the sections. Also a list of the most frequently read articles from

the previous week appears each week. These articles continue to get

attention for an additional week. A print edition is published once a

week containing some of the articles that appeared online during the

week.

Creating a better world

If a citizen reporter’s article is used, the citizen reporter earns

W2000 (W1000 = approx .80 euro), W10,000, or W20,000. Articles that

appear on the main page earn W20,000, those that appear at the top of

one of the sections, earn W10,000, and those that appear somewhere else

in the online publication earn W2,000. OhmyNews reports that when

citizen reporters are asked why they submit their articles to OhmyNews

even though they are paid so little, they respond that they want to

Page 43

contribute to creating a better world.

Explaining the criteria used by the editors to choose which of the

articles submitted by citizen reporters will appear in OhmyNews, Oh

writes, “Beginning with current events, how much sympathy the articles

will arouse, how lively they are and how much social impact they will

have.” A graduate student studying blogs reports that bloggers feel that

blogs are less influential in South Korea because many potential

bloggers prefer to be citizen reporters for OhmyNews.

OhmyNews celebrated its 5

birthday on February 22, 2005. Oh

describes the first 5 years of OhmyNews as the first stage of the young

newspaper’s development. An objective during this stage was to gain a

standing as a serious newspaper in South Korea. This was achieved by

critiquing the activities of the big conglomerates and the big media.

Coverage was given to important Korean progressive events like the

campaign to win the Presidency of South Korea for Roh Moo-Hyun, or

the campaign to turn back his impeachment. Oh also describes how

articles about those with little power were written and published in

OhmyNews. Another goal during the first stage of OhmyNews’s

development was to spread the OhmyNews model to the world.

English Edition of OhmyNews

The newspaper has been written up in major newspapers around the

world. This has brought inquiries from people in a number of countries

asking for advice about how to create a similar newspaper. To respond

to these requests, an English edition of OhmyNews was created on May

27, 2004, and publishes regularly. Articles are from citizen reporters

around the world, from columnists or from the staff who work on the

OhmyNews International (OMNI) edition.

Oh explains that OhmyNews has now entered its second stage. The

objective of this stage is to “go beyond criticism of the existing social

establishment to propose alternatives for a new society.” To achieve this

goal, OhmyNews will rely on staff reporters. Recognizing the influence

a newspaper can have, Oh stresses the need for such influence to be used

in a responsible way. Another objective in this second stage is to

develop multimedia further, to aim to set up an Internet TV program, for

example. This, however, takes money to fund, so it may not be a goal

Page 44

achieved very soon. With respect to the international edition, Oh doesn’t

foresee developing it as a competitor to current international newspapers

like the New York Times or the Washington Post.

Instead, he hopes to spread the model, concept and vision of

OhmyNews in order to help interested people in other countries to create

their own national versions of OhmyNews. “In each country there are

many specific, unique conditions to succeed,” he explains, “If there are

enough OhmyNews models in other countries, we can make an alliance

to exchange articles and to help each other.”

There are online users who are working to extend democracy in

South Korea and who consider themselves ‘netizens.’ Many ‘netizens’

have contributed to OhmyNews and it, in turn, has helped them to

achieve important accomplishments in the current democratization of

South Korea. For example, within two months of the birth of

OhmyNews, four reporters were sent to cover the Blacklist campaign to

prevent corrupt or incompetent politicians from being reelected in the

April 2000 election.

Even more significant was the campaign waged by ‘netizens’ to

help Roh Moo-Hyun, a politician not in the mainstream of Korean

politics, win the Presidency of South Korea in December 2002.

OhmyNews also played an important role in this campaign. In the Spring

of 2004, ‘netizens’ and OhmyNews challenged the impeachment of Roh

by organizing and reporting on the massive candlelight demonstrations

in which many thousands of people participated.

More than a mere dream

Among the problems facing OhmyNews is the frustration of some

citizen reporters with the difficulty of communication they have with the

staff. Oh has a plan to try to improve such communication. In addition,

some international citizen reporters have complained about the difficulty

of getting the payments they are due for their articles.

On a recent visit to Seoul, I asked people I met whether they knew

of and read OhmyNews. Many responded that they knew of OhmyNews,

while several said they read it. In talking with people in South Korea

about OhmyNews, some felt it was biased toward the current President,

Roh Moo-Hyun, who it had helped to put into office. Others praised it

Page 45

as one of the few progressive publications in South Korea.

Just this past June, OhmyNews had an international forum in Seoul,

inviting citizen reporters from around the world, and from all parts of

South Korea to take part. The event was a significant gathering to

sponsor and to fund for a young media organization that is but five years

old. The daily Korean online publication and the English edition are a

continuing demonstration that Oh’s commitment to contributing to the

creation of a 21

century journalism as an interactive and participatory

journalism is more than a mere dream.

How the development and spread of the Internet will affect the

future of journalism is still to be determined. In South Korea,

OhmyNews and netizens have demonstrated that there is a different form

of journalism vying to become the journalism of the future. Also they

are demonstrating that the impact this new form of journalism will have

on politics is not to be underestimated.

[Editor’s note: The following is a paper read at the ‘Computer Networks, the Internet

and Netizens: Their Impact of Science and Society’ symposium on July 26, 2005 as

part of the XXII International Congress of History of Science in Beijing. It was

followed by an interesting discussion. A slightly different version of this paper was

previously presented in November, 2001 at the Asia-Pacific Journalist Meeting in

Tokyo, Japan by Li Xiguang. The numbers are 4 years old but the general picture it

paints helps understand some of the press situation in China today.]

The Impact of New Communication

Technologies on Chinese

Press Politics

by Li Xiguang*, Guo Xiaoke, and Xu Yong

Abstract: The function and role of the Chinese press have changed

dramatically from the days when it functioned strictly as an ideological

Party mouthpiece and government cheerleader. Foremost among the

drivers of change for China’s media is the Internet which has weakened

the government control of press and information.

Page 46

The Internet means different things to different people in different

societies. To some, it provides an opportunity to make money, to others,

it means freedom from press controls. For still others, the Internet is a

public forum in which citizens of a closed society can discuss politics.

In the past six years the Internet has developed rapidly in China, as it has

in the rest of the world. This poses new challenges to the country’s press

system and media policy.

With the flourishing of satellite TV, cable TV, and the Internet, a

new media environment has taken shape in China. Official news outlets

are being outnumbered by their nongovernmental, commercial, and

overseas counterparts. The Internet is becoming a public medium for

people with different ideas and viewpoints.

For decades Chinese media consisted of newspapers, magazines,

publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and TV stations under the

control of propaganda authorities at all levels. Today, besides more than

2,000 daily newspapers, 900 TV stations, and over 90 million cable TV

users, there are now probably more than 300,000 websites. These

include news websites, professional information sites, corporate sites,

institutional sites, and personal homepages. The recent figure could be

more than 30 million Chinese Internet users, operating about 11 million

computers, spending at least one hour a day at web pages. Nearly 64%

use the Internet to read news. Some 24% of adult users and 40% of

young users visit overseas websites, including those based in Taiwan

and the United States. These news outlets do not need to be approved by

the Communist Party’s propaganda departments.

In the past the government easily controlled and even manipulated

popular opinion by limiting the public to only official information

source. Watching the 7 p.m. evening news (“Xinwen Lianbo”) on state-

run CCTV, the China Central Television, had been a national ritual at

the family dinner table. Besides daily news coverage, the party and

government depended on the program to put across their major

propaganda campaigns and political mobilizations. But today the

program is losing audience share dramatically, particularly among young

viewers who spend most of their time on the Web, watching VCDs and

cable TV.

In the days of the single-source news, people had no way to verify

Page 47

the information they received. For a long time the propaganda authori-

ties effectively controlled the flow of information, news sources, and

information outlets. But in the age of the Internet, this media system is

facing the challenge of news from multiple sources. Members of the

public no longer rely on official information sources to form their

opinions. Instead, when a big news event happens, people compare,

analyze, and balance the information they get from different sources.

They form their own viewpoints after discounting what they consider

biased information.

The Internet is developing with unprecedented speed. Its advance

in China can be compared with the invention of paper by the Chinese

1,000 years ago. The Internet has brought the country into the age of

global communications as well as the global village. Until a few years

ago Chinese authorities controlled the flow of news and information by

jamming shortwave radio broadcasts and banning any individual from

installing a satellite TV antenna. Anyone who wanted to own a fax

machine had to register with the Telecommunications Ministry. Today

the rule about registering fax machines with a local government office

is still there. But with the advent of the Internet, the Telecommunica-

tions Ministry has found its fax machine controls outdated. The

government strictly controls the radio broadcast through a frequency

licensing system. But today people can start a website station or directly

listen to webcasts via the Internet instead of on air frequencies.

The Internet has technically eliminated the last obstruction to a free

flow of information. To stop the circulation of information on the Net is

as futile as a child trying to block bursting Yangtze River dam with his

fingers. The great wall that has blocked the free flow of news and

information is now collapsing as more and more Chinese families get

access to the Internet. In today’s China the most effective way to staunch

information flow would be to assign a policeman to every computer in

the country.

Newspapers, radio, and TV are converging in the Internet world.

How will this convergence and the growing number of Internet users

affect traditional Chinese media concepts and official media policy?

Propaganda officials and media policy-makers in China could

hardly imagine that mass media would develop at such a fast pace. Only

Page 48

two years ago, when a journalism school graduate chose an occupation,

the options were simple: newspaper, magazine, radio, or TV. But today

newspapers, radio, and TV have become one on the Internet and

multimedia platforms. The demarcation lines have disappeared. Readers

of the Internet edition of the People’s Daily can download audiovisual

material. So in this sense, newspapers have entered the broadcast

market. If you visit the homepage of CCTV, you will find that it

provides detailed text news and material for readers. So TV stations

have also entered the newspaper market.

Under current policies, Chinese newspapers, TV stations, radio, and

news agencies must operate separately and under the control of various

party and government organizations. The People’s Daily, for example,

cannot own a radio station, while a news agency like Xinhua is not

allowed to own a TV station. Under this policy, the country has only one

wire service-Xinhua. But tens of thousands of news websites are

operating like mini-Xinhuas. They post a wide variety of stories, either

gathered by their own Internet reporters or based on clippings from

Chinese and foreign media (even though the government bans the use of

Western wire stories on the Web). Popular portals such sina.com,

yahoo.com, eastday.com, and so on are functioning like quasi news

agencies.

Traditional media (newspapers, magazines, radio, and television) in

China are characterized by the following features:

* They are restricted by geographic region;

* Restricted by audience numbers;

* Restricted by licensing system;

* Restricted by the high costs of entering the market;

* Restricted by high delivery costs as well as the unreliability of

newspaper and magazine mailing;

* Restricted to one-way communication in which audiences are

completely passive.

But the World Wide Web has brought to China sharply contrasting

conditions:

* Unlimited audience numbers;

* No need for licenses to launch electronic publications;

* Low costs to enter the Internet: a computer, a modem and a phone

Page 49

line;

* Not restricted to a single region or country, news and information on

the Internet travel to all users worldwide at the same speed;

* The Internet has opened a system of two-way communication – in

stark contrast with China’s long-standing, indoctrination-oriented

propaganda system.

For decades, both for political and technological reasons, the

Chinese media have never been a forum for public discussion and

debate. But the advent of chatrooms via Internet technology has

provided the Chinese people with a channel for the free flow of

information. Its chief characteristics:

1) People can provide information anonymously;

2) An equal opportunity for participants to speak their minds;

3) Topics for discussion are unlimited and cannot be preset;

4) Internet users are both readers and publishers;

5) An ability to give readers what they want instead of what the

government thinks they want;

6) The airing of information that traditional media dare not publish;

7) Censors’ inability to keep pace with the online media.

As a result,

* Chatrooms in China have aired ideas and debates that simply aren’t

accessible through traditional media;

* The reader-interest-based content makes the agenda-setting function

more consumer-driven than government-driven;

* People’s attitudes are being shaped by information from chatrooms

rather than from the official media.

For Chinese, the Internet has opened the door to a free flow of

information. Internet chatrooms have provided Chinese with an

unlimited space to exchange information freely and anonymously. They

have been described as electronic versions of the big-character posters

that were the most efficient means of mobilizing public opinion during

the Cultural Revolution.

As a popular part of Chinese online media, chatrooms are posing a

big threat to the government-controlled press by revising and recon-

structing its agenda. Agenda-setting theory holds that the mass media

determine what is important by leading newscasts with a particular story

Page 50

or printing it on page one. When news gatekeepers no longer consider

an item of importance, they allow it to slip off the public agenda. For

decades, China’s mass media effectively set agendas for propaganda

purposes. But with so many news outlets in the age of globalization,

people’s media behavior is influenced by the so-called selective

processes. People have developed many ways of revising and recon-

structing the agenda set by the official press.

For example, the People’s Daily launched the “Strong Nation

Forum” chatroom to give its readers a chance to react to the news and

vent their emotions. But most Chinese have used this system not only to

discuss the news but also to post news stories unreported in the official

media. Such media behavior has made audiences pay attention to issues

ignored by the official press, making hidden agendas transparent.

As a result, the list of issues for discussion and debate in cyberspace

are reconstructed topics selected from both the Chinese and the Western

media.

During the recent U.S.-China plane-collision incident, our research

found how Chinese public opinion is shaped in the Internet Age. Our

study analyzed all related news reports, editorials and other articles that

appeared in the People’s Daily between April 2 and April 30.

Chatrooms have changed the fundamental movement of news in

China. The official press has always wanted the Chinese people to have

the “right” information and perspective. But the authorities are losing the

battle to control information and free expression on the Internet. Chinese

websites have displayed a liveliness not found in the traditional media.

The Internet is changing China, throwing the country open to ideas and

debates that simply are not accessible through traditional media. But in

their eagerness to develop the Net, China’s top leaders appear willing to

tolerate a certain amount of frankness that would otherwise be stamped

out. The Internet has become a powerful and popular channel for both

the government and ordinary Chinese to hear and to be heard.

If the people of one country do not trust their own national media,

they will turn to the international press, including that of the country

which is in conflict with theirs. Setting the agenda for another nation

through media and the Internet has become a “soft power” in interna-

tional politics. The global media and foreign media could influence any

Page 51

country’s agenda-setting. The more trust the press gains with users, the

more effectively it will set agendas. China’s official press cannot expect

that its chosen topics will become the chief public concerns. In the age

of globalization, if the Chinese do not start press reform soon, the

Western media will eventually set the public agenda for China.

The people and public opinion are important elements in a society

and in a political system. For decades popular opinion in China has been

under the strict control of the party and the government. But today

agendas are being set through the Internet. The Net is transferring the

national concerns of the Chinese to a global level. That makes China

part of a globalized community, whose agenda has been under the

control and manipulation of the global media.

*Professor/Director, Center for International Communications Studies,

Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. 100084,

www.media.tsinghua.edu.cn, xiguang@tsinghua.edu.cn

The opinions expressed in articles are those of their authors and not

necessarily the opinions of the Amateur Computerist newsletter. We

welcome submissions from a spectrum of viewpoints.

ELECTRONIC EDITION

ACN Webpage:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ All issues of the Amateur

Computerist are on-line. Back issues of the Amateur Computerist are available at:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/Back_Issues/

All issues can be accessed from the Index at:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/NewIndex.pdf

Page 52

EDITORIAL STAFF

Ronda Hauben

William Rohler

Norman O. Thompson

Michael Hauben (1973-2001)

Jay Hauben

The Amateur Computerist invites submissions. Articles can be

submitted via e-mail:

[email protected] Permission is given to reprint articles from

this issue in a non profit publication provided credit is given, with name of

author and source of article cited.

Page 53