The Amateur

Computerist

Winter 2011 OhmyNews International 2004-2010 Volume 20 No. 1

OhmyNews International

Pioneer of Transnational

Journalism

In May 2004, the Korean language online news

site OhmyNews began an English language edition.

They called this English language edition

OhmyNews International. It was also known as

OMNI. It was ended on Aug. 31, 2010.

This issue of the Amateur Computerist newslet-

ter is a special issue focusing on the experience and

implications of the six years of OhmyNews Interna-

tional.

During most of these six years OhmyNews In-

ternational was under the editorship of Todd

Thacker who provided a helpful and supportive en-

vironment to contributors. A number of these con-

tributors, especially in the early years were journal-

ists or other specialists in various subjects from

countries around the world.

Table of Contents

OMNI Pioneer of Transnational Journalism. . Page 1

Background: OhmyNews Korea. . . . . . . . . . . Page 3

Closure is Sad Event. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7

From the Frontline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7

Long-Lasting Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 8

Unfinished Journey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 9

Reporting from the United Nations.. . . . . . . Page 10

Thanks for the Memory.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 15

Participatory Journalism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 15

Focus Was Too Broad?.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 17

OMNI’s Legacy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 18

Every Citizen Is a Reporter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 20

Comments on the Closing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 24

There were articles for example by Wooksik

Cheong on inter-Korean relations, Ramzy Baroud

on Palestinian issues, John Horvath on Eastern Eu-

ropean developments, Alex Krabbe on E.U. and

German events, Tim Savage on nuclear develop-

ments, Chris Gelken on events in Iran, the Middle

East, and on China, and Ronda Hauben on the so-

cial impact of the Net and netizens and on UN re-

lated issues. These are but some examples of arti-

cles that continued over a period of time in

OhmyNews International.

Along with articles by a set of featured writers,

there were contributions from journalists or volun-

teer reporters (called citizen reporters or news guer-

rillas) from around the world.

From 2005 to 2008, OhmyNews International

held a yearly international forum in South Korea.

The first three forums made it possible for journal-

ists from a number of different countries to meet for

the few days of the forum. Some formed friendships

lasting years afterwards. Some of the journalists

who wrote for OhmyNews International played pio-

neering roles in the development of online journal-

ism. In the summer of 2008, the fourth forum fea-

tured journalists who had covered and documented

the 106 day candlelight demonstration in Seoul that

spring.

Going to the first OhmyNews International Cit-

izen Reporters’ Forum in the summer of 2005, one

journalist noted the spirit and vision of several of

the other OhmyNews International writers. These

writers and Todd as the editor had a sense that there

was a need for a publication that supported the

quest for a better world. We would mention from

the early period among others Alex Krabbe, Trung

Nguyen, James Fontanella and Rupesh Silwal.

An essential aspect of OhmyNews International

was its ability to draw contributions from journal-

ists around the world, often journalists for whom

English was a second language or a language they

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

Page 1

wanted to learn. The content of OhmyNews Interna-

tional was able to reflect a transnational perspective

rather than a narrow national viewpoint which is

characteristic of many other news publications.

Some remarkable coverage found its way into

OhmyNews International. It featured coverage of

the large demonstrations in South Korea against the

effort to impeach President Roh Moo-hyun in 2004,

of the struggle in Nepal after King Gyanendra as-

sumed direct power and declared a nation-wide

state of emergency in 2005, and of the struggle

against the removal of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mu-

hammad Chaudhry in Pakistan in 2007.

Another aspect of OhmyNews International

was that it would print articles covering diverse

viewpoints on an issue. When in 2005 there was a

struggle in France against the EU constitution or in

2006 against an employment law expanding the

ability of employers to get around the regulations

providing for permanent employment, OhmyNews

International had articles reflecting pro and con

viewpoints. Similarly, in the debate over whether or

not it was a freedom of speech issue to print the car-

toons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in disre-

spectful ways in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-

Posten, OhmyNews International included articles

with opposing perspectives on the issue.

OhmyNews International showed that with

minimal resources and a hard working editor it was

possible to gather important articles on an ongoing

way over a substantial period of time.

Another aspect of OhmyNews International is

that it gave the international community a peek into

the potential that OhmyNews founder and CEO Oh

Yeon-ho had put forward as a vision for a more

grassroots form of media. (See the article “Back-

ground: OhmyNews Korea”, this issue page 3).

We have not mentioned the aspect most often

associated with OhmyNews, the promotion of the

notion of citizen journalism. One reason we have

not featured this as part of this description of contri-

butions by OhmyNews International is that we see

the importance of defending a broad concept of ‘citi-

zenship’. That concept has its roots in the social and

civic participatory activism as practiced by the citi-

zens who declared themselves the sovereigns in

place of the King during the French Revolution.

If there was to be a support for something

called “citizen journalism” a broad conception of

“citizen” needed to be established as the basis for

this form of journalism. Mr. Oh referred to this

broad conception of citizen at times when he talked

about how it was the netizens who were the basis

for OhmyNews, i.e. those who had a view of a better

society and saw their participation in OhmyNews as

a contribution to that vision. Too often a narrow

view of citizen has been adopted as the basis for

citizen journalism. For the mainstream media, citi-

zen journalism became a means of getting on-the-

scene reports from volunteers rather than articles

from citizen watchdogs that reflect a broader vision

of journalism.*

By summer 2007, three of the part-time editors

of the international edition were dismissed.

OhmyNews explained that it did not yet have a

means of supporting financially the international

edition. A scaled back edition continued to be pub-

lished until August 31, 2010 when the site no longer

allowed new articles to be submitted.

During its six years of existence it was a noble

endeavor. We want to thank those who put their

heart and soul into making it something important.

In the pages of this issue of the Amateur

Computerist, we have contributions from a small

sample of the many people who contributed to

OhmyNews International over these years. While

this small set of articles does not in any way consti-

tute a summary of the significant achievements or

problems of OhmyNews International, it does give a

flavor of what the experience meant to some of its

participants.

This issue begins with the article,

“Background: OhmyNews Korea” which tells some

of the story of the Korean online news site.

OhmyNews (OMN) pioneered major content submit-

ted by citizen reporters and edited by experienced

journalists. It set out to be a significant progressive

alternative news media to provide a counter to the

dominant South Korean mainstream conservative

press. Its early success encouraged its founder Oh

Yeon-ho to sponsor OhmyNews International.

Next follow nine articles viewing OhmyNews

International from the different points of view of

the editors, feature writers and citizen journalists

who sent their submissions for this issue and an ar-

ticle by Ulla Rannikko who shares some of her ob-

servations from her experience of doing a PhD the-

sis, in part about OhmyNews International.

Ramzy Baroud wrote to us: “It was truly sad

that OMNI had to close; I do believe that it served a

Page 2

very important mission at an important juncture,

and also inspired many writers and online devel-

opers…. I think it is very important to reflect on.”

We hope that this issue of the Amateur Computerist

will encourage others to reflect on and write of their

experience with OhmyNews International.

*See for example the article “Netizenship in the 21

Century”,

which explores how citizenry, empowered by the Internet, and

hence acting as netizens, can watchdog their societies and

attempt to check the abuse of power by government officials.

It is available at:

http://ais.org/~jrh/acn/Paris-7-13-10.doc

[Editors note: The following background of the

OhmyNews project is taken from “Online Grass-

roots Journalism and Participatory Democracy in

South Korea” by Ronda Hauben. It is a chapter in

Korea Yearbook 2007 published by Brill (2008). A

draft of the chapter appears at:

http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/netizens_dr

aft.pdf]

Background:

OhmyNews Korea

The Korean language online news site

OhmyNews began in February 2000 with the

explicit objective of bringing about a shift in the

balance of power of the media in South Korea.

OhmyNews was started by Oh Yeon-ho, formerly a

journalist for the Monthly Mal, an alternative maga-

zine owned by the Citizen’s Coalition for Demo-

cratic Media. Oh worked for Mal as a journalist for

the decade following 1988. In July 1994, he pub-

lished a story based on his in-depth investigation of

the 1950 No Gun Ri massacre

of South Korean

civilians by U.S. soldiers during the Korean War.

The mainstream conservative Korean press ignored

the story at the time, though there was a reference

to the Mal story in the progressive daily newspaper

Hankyoreh.

Five years later, in 1999 some Associated Press

(AP) reporters wrote about the incident. The main-

stream Korean news media from the Korean Broad-

casting System to Chosun Ilbo wrote articles based

on the AP story, as if it were breaking news,

explained Oh. Not only did the South Korean gov-

ernment take it up, but the AP reporters won a Pu-

litzer Prize for their article. While the AP story in-

cluded accounts from U.S. soldiers who had been

involved, an element which had not been part of

Oh’s story, this experience led Oh to conclude that

it was not the nature of the news that governed how

much attention a story received, but the power of

the news media organization that determined what

was to be considered as news.

As a reporter for a small alternative publica-

tion, Oh experienced discrimination in his effort to

cover stories. Nor did journalists for the mainstream

conservative media treat him as a fellow journalist.

Oh observed that power was maintained by the

mainstream media via their ability to set the stan-

dards for what was considered news, news gather-

ing and news distribution. With the creation of

OhmyNews, Oh was determined to make fundamen-

tal changes in the process of news gathering, pro-

duction and distribution.

One basic change that OhmyNews instituted

was to welcome netizens to become journalists. De-

scribing his philosophy, 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. Priv-

ileged reporters who come together to form

massive news media wielded power over the

whole process of news production, distribu-

tion and consumption.

Readers of OhmyNews could submit stories

which would be considered by the editors for publi-

cation. Articles which were accepted were fact-

1 In the 1990s, thirty South Koreans filed several petitions to

the U.S. government, alleging a mass killing of refugees by

American soldiers at No Gun Ri, a small village in South

Korea, during the Korean War. In the spring of 1994, 73 year

old Eun-yong Chong, a survivor’s husband, published a

factual novel called Do You Know Our Agony? (Kudae, Uri Ui

Apumul Anunga) based on his own research and collection of

information about the incident. This novel caught the eye of

some Korean journalists. Upon investigation, the massacre

was found to be an incident during the Korean War in which

an undetermined number of Korean civilians were killed by

soldiers of the U.S. 7

Cavalry Regiment and from the air between July 26 and 28 near the village of No Gun Ri.

Page 3

checked, edited and then published. Those who con-

tributed articles were called citizen journalists or

citizen reporters. The citizen reporters whose arti-

cles appeared in OhmyNews would be paid a small

fee; the amount depended on whether the article

appeared on the front page or elsewhere in

OhmyNews. Oh explains that instead of the standard

of most mainstream journalists, ‘I produce and you

read’, OhmyNews had substituted, ‘We produce, we

read, we change the world together’. The concept of

‘news’ was transformed by OhmyNews. Articles

could include opinions as long as the facts were ac-

curate.

Oh started OhmyNews with a small staff of

four reporters and limited resources. He was helped

by online production of the newspaper, with the

Internet providing a platform that would make pos-

sible readers’ comments and discussion on articles

and the means to distribute the newspaper. In order

to produce this Internet newspaper, given its small

staff, Oh adopted a strategy that he called ‘selection

and concentration’. The staff would decide on a fo-

cus for their coverage and put their resources into

providing substantial coverage of these stories.

Though at the beginning priority was given to news

about Korean politics, society and non-governmen-

tal organizations (NGOs), other sections, including

international news, business and culture, were

added as the newspaper developed.

In the business plan for the OhmyNews

Foundation, several aspects of OhmyNews are ex-

plained in greater detail.

The long-term strategy is

to produce ‘an Internet daily newspaper superior to

Digital Chosun’. OhmyNews will bring innovations

to ‘journalism culture by a revolution in news pro-

duction, delivery and consumption culture’, and

will provide a ‘pivot for the federation of

reporter-like reporters’. News form and content will

be transformed with the goal of ‘destroy[ing] the

standardized form of news report’, striving for the

‘best investigative reports’, and reporting ‘vivid

sounds of the field: live reports, audio plus video, if

possible’. The third aspect, after strategy and trans-

formation of work methods, will be to ‘fire arrows

toward specific targets: attack corrupted and privi-

leged areas’. The targeted audience is the ‘Young

N-generation, progressive activists, and reporters’,

including ‘high school students, college students,

386 generation, NGO[s], local activists and report-

ers’. The philosophy proposed is labeled ‘open pro-

gressive’. This means that ‘We are to pursue open

progressive perspectives, criticizing unproductive

and stubborn progressives and supporting produc-

tive and conscientious conservatives.’ While the

group PSPD (Peoples Solidarity for Participatory

Democracy) worked to build solidarity among civic

activists as an NGO, OhmyNews also sought to cre-

ate an ‘NGO’—News Guerrillas Organization —

for solidarity among ‘news guerrillas’. Oh explains

this term as follows: “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.”

The goal in the business plan is to replace

the 8:2 ratio between conservative media and pro-

gressive media in South Korea with a 5:5 ratio.

2002 Candlelight Demonstrations For Two

Dead Girls

In June 2002, an armored military vehicle

driven by two U.S. servicemen ran over and killed

two Korean middle-school girls. At the time, how-

ever, most Koreans were focused on the World Cup

celebrations taking place in South Korea. By No-

vember 2002, the mood had changed, and there was

a clear desire among many Koreans that the soldiers

concerned should be punished. The Status of Forces

Agreement (SOFA) between the U.S. and the Re-

public of Korea provided that the soldiers be tried

by U.S. courts, not under Korean law, and they

were found not guilty. A documentary about the

trial and its outcome was shown on Korean televi-

sion. A few hours after watching the documentary,

an OhmyNews citizen reporter, using the name

AngMA, posted a message on several forums on the

Internet including one at OhmyNews, which read

We are owners of Korea. We are Koreans

who deserve to be able to walk in

Gwanghwamun

. I cried when I watched the

TV documentary broadcast of the event, be-

2 Oh, Yeon-ho (2004), ‘Business Plan’, Daehanminguk

Tuksanpoom, OhmyNews, Seoul: Humanist, pp. 327-353,

Translation from Korean into English by Lee Jin-sun.

3 Message translated from Korean into English by Lee Jin-

sun.

4 Gwanghwamun is the area in downtown Seoul where the

U.S. embassy is located. It was off limits for demonstrations.

Page 4

cause until now I didn’t understand those

who struggle so strongly.

It is said that dead men’s souls become fire-

flies. Let’s fill downtown with our souls,

with the souls of Mi-seon and Hyo-soon.

Let’s become thousands of fireflies this

coming Saturday and Sunday. Let’s sacrifice

our private comfortable lives. Please light

your candle at your home. If somebody asks,

please answer, ‘I’m going to commemorate

my dead sisters’. Holding candles and wear-

ing black, let’s have a memorial ceremony

for them.

Let’s walk in Gwanghwamun holding a

lighted candle. Let’s commemorate the lives

of Mi-seon and Hyo-soon, who were forgot-

ten in the joy of June. Will the police pre-

vent us? Even if they forbid it, I will walk in

Gwanghwamun, even if the police attack

me. We are not Americans who revenge

[sic] violence with more violence. Even if

only one person comes, it’s ok. I will be

happy to say hello. I will talk about the fu-

ture of Korea in which Mi-seon and Hyo-

soon can take a comfortable rest. I’ll go on,

this week, next week, the following week.

Let’s fill Gwanghwamun with our candle-

light. Let’s put out the American’s violence

with our peace.

AngMA posted this at three different online

sites on 28 November 2002 at 04:00, five hours af-

ter he had seen the TV documentary. The next day

he posted it at OhmyNews. Fifteen thousand people

appeared at the first candlelight vigil for the two

dead girls on 30 November. The rally was due to

netizens and the Internet. The movement continued

to develop and expand. So too did the online discus-

sion and debate. By 14 December more than

100,000 people gathered in Gwanghwamun.

Roh Moo-Hyun’s Election Campaign

The candlelight demonstrations of 2002 oc-

curred during a period leading up to the presidential

election campaign held that year. Developments in

the election campaign were another part of the

power struggle between the conservative print me-

dia and online discussion by netizens on the

Internet. During the campaign, criticism in the print

media stirred interest in Roh Moo-hyun, a candidate

who was considered to be outside of the political

mainstream. The narrow focus of the conservative

print media was countered by a broad discussion

online of the issues of the election. This discussion

utilized a variety of online forms, including discus-

sion groups, online polemics, and online journal-

ism. Responses to the print articles were posted and

distributed on the Internet.

Up until March 2002, Roh was scoring far

behind Lee Hoi-chang according to polls such as

one reported in Chosun Ilbo (5 March 2002), which

gave Lee 38.7 percent of the vote, and Roh 25.2

percent. In online publications, however, there were

signs that the election was going to be more of a

close race than was apparent in the print press. An

online publication, Digital Times, as early as Febru-

ary 2002 showed Roh ahead of Lee. The significant

aspect of the election campaign for Roh was the

fact that his candidacy was strongly opposed by the

conservative print press. For example, during the

primary election, the ‘major newspapers almost ev-

eryday carried articles that both implicitly and ex-

plicitly criticized candidate Roh Moo-hyun’. Sur-

prisingly, the attacks by the print media served to

increase the public’s interest in Roh and his cam-

paign. As Yun Seongyi suggests, ‘[a]s a result more

and more voters must have wondered to themselves

“Just who is this Roh Moo-hyun?” In his study of

the activity on the Internet during the 2002 election,

Yun Young-min documents the ‘sharp increase in

the number of visits to Roh’s website’ and judges

‘that must have been the reason why “Roh

Moo-hyun” became one of the most popular search

terms in the news section of portal sites.’

Criticism of Roh by the major newspapers

had a David and Goliath effect, with Roh being re-

garded as the brave David able to slay the more

powerful Goliath. Attacks on Roh that appeared in

the conservative print media were quick to draw

responses and discussion in online newspapers and

discussion forums. If there was a reference in the

print media to a speech that Roh gave, the whole

speech would be posted online with a response to

the article that had appeared in the print media.

Similarly, online discussions were common, and

supporters of Roh would send each other articles

they found of interest. The online discussion and

exchange of views found particular favor among the

younger generations who had previously found pol-

itics uninteresting. A feedback loop developed be-

tween the articles published in the conservative ma-

Page 5

jor print publications and the comments and discus-

sion that occurred online. To Lee Eun-Jung, the

election of 2002 was ‘a power struggle between the

main print media and the Internet’, and ‘for the first

time in Korean history, the power of the so-called

netizen ¼ made itself felt’.

Role of netizens in the election campaign

Prior to the election, most experts would

have assumed that it was impossible for Roh. But

after the election, these same experts would agree

that the Internet had played a significant role in the

victory. Though he is cautious about claiming cau-

sality without further study, Yun Young-min pro-

poses that the ‘so-called experts’ should exert cau-

tion when making their predictions about ‘such

events in the future’.

Summarizing Roh’s victory, Yun Young-

min writes:

Cyberspace is making it possible for citizens

to choose a political position free from the

influence of the mainstream press…. Public

opinion, which has been almost exclusively

minted by a few mass media, can no longer

be hidden beneath the control of the press.

The… effect is expected to break the old

equation, ‘the opinion of the press = public

opinion = prevailing opinion’.

Lee Eun-Jung agrees that something impor-

tant happened: ‘In a sense the netizens mobilized

themselves into the political realm, exercising their

power as citizens…’, and concludes that ‘with their

electoral revolution the netizens had transformed

political culture in Korea.’…

OhmyNews and the netizens played a critical

role in the hours leading up to the election sched-

uled for 19 December 2002. Oh and other

OhmyNews journalists and citizen reporters covered

the events continuously throughout the night. As the

election approached, Oh realized he had watched

netizens supporting the Roh election phenomenon

for two years. Oh wondered if it would be possible

for netizens to succeed in their campaign for Roh

given the opposition of the conservative media. He

describes what happened. Around 22:30 the night

before the election, Chung Mong-joon, Roh’s

partner in the campaign, withdrew his support for

Roh. Chosun Ilbo announced the event, urging vot-

ers to follow Chung’s lead and withdraw their sup-

port from Roh. OhmyNews continually updated its

coverage. Oh reports that the discussion boards on

OhmyNews were flooded with comments. The arti-

cle in OhmyNews about Chung’s withdrawal of sup-

port received 570,000 hits in the ten hours follow-

ing the announcement. With the hits it received

later that day, making a total of 720,000, it set a

record for the most hits on a single article in

OhmyNews in one day. Instead of being dissuaded

by Chung’s action and Chosun Ilbo’s efforts to

change the course of what would happen in the

election, netizens rallied round Roh, discussing

what to do about the turn of events, and urging their

family, friends and others to vote. This episode led

Oh to the conclusion that the importance of the

2002 election was that it was not based on support

for Roh personally, but was a manifestation of ‘the

desire of young netizens for political reform’.

After the election victory, reporters from

Chosun Ilbo and other conservative news media

called to congratulate Oh and other OhmyNews re-

porters. According to Oh,

OhmyNews did our job as the media by giv-

ing the Roh Phenomenon its worth as a

news story. For example, on a scale of 100

we gave the Roh Phenomenon a 95 in terms

of newsworthiness. Korea’s conservative

dailies, however, gave it only a 30. Through

our own abilities, we did what the media

naturally should have done. We rejected

their standards and through on-the-spot cov-

erage we were able to decide just how news-

worthy the Roh phenomenon was.

On 19 December, 2002, Oh wrote that ‘[t]he

power of the media dominated for 80 years by

Chosun Ilbo, Joong Ang Ilbo and Dong-A Ilbo has

finally changed. The power has gone from the

printed newspaper and the professional journalists

to the netizens and citizen reporters’.

With this strong start in its first three years,

OhmyNews was in October, 2003 ranked sixth in a

survey of “Korea’s Most Influential Media”.

2004, OhmyNews added an English language news

site OhmyNews International. In 2010, OhmyNews

succumbed to the same financial difficulties as

other media. The company changed from an adver-

tising dependent to a subscriber model for funding

5 Sisa Journal, October 21, 2003

Page 6

its operations. On August 31, it ended support for

new submissions to OhmyNews International.

Closure of OhmyNews

International

A sad event for citizen journalists*

by Proloy Kumar Bagchi

proloy[email protected]

I don’t know whether people will really be-

lieve me when I say that I got a wrench in my heart

when I opened the mail from OhmyNews Interna-

tional (OMNI) and learned about the decision of the

promoters to close the site. That the site that in-

spired many others to come out into the cyberworld

would one day fold up was unthinkable. Everyone

looked up at it for its values – moral and journalistic

– and tried to imbibe some, if not all, of it. For six

years it remained as a shining star of participatory

journalism. Unfortunately soon thereafter, one pre-

sumes, it came face to face with problems that at

least I am not privy to.

That there was that tell-tale sign of difficul-

ties had become obvious for a few weeks now. Yet,

I, for one, never lost faith in the belief that the site

would soon revive. I kept uploading my pieces and,

lo and behold, they were being viewed by hundreds

although they were continuously kept under edito-

rial review and never made it to the Home Page. It

was so satisfying.

In fact, for me, sitting in the central Indian

town of Bhopal, OMNI has been a great way for

reaching out to the wider world. My topical and

environmental pieces were read and occasionally

commented upon. On two occasions researches on

citizen journalism from the U.S. and U.K. even got

in touch with me – the latter even interviewed me

on Skype. For a retired civil servant who had taken

to writing only to contribute to society it was a great

recompense.

I hoped that Mr. Oh and his colleagues

would somehow pull through and keep the site go-

ing. That they would decide to close it never oc-

curred to me. OMNI had such a wide sweep. One

could write about any and everything for it, the only

requirement was integrity and dignity. I still nurse

the hope that somehow the site will be kept alive

even if another one, with far narrower perspective,

is mounted.

If that doesn’t happen, here are heartfelt

thanks to OMNI for hosting me and its readers for

reading my pieces. And, of course best of my

wishes for OMNI’s new venture and its talented

team.

*Submitted from Bhopal India to OMNI on Aug 9, 2010,

never published.

(

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_sangview.as

p?menu=c10400&no=386164&rel_no=1)

OhmyNews From the

Frontline

by Todd Thacker,

OMNI Editor 2004-2009,

newspaperman@gmail.com

It’s an honor to share some of my reflections

on 5 years at OhmyNews International – a forma-

tive time in my career. I must admit that after

OMNI shut its doors as a full-fledged (profession-

ally edited) citizen journalism site this year, I

moved on. A new family and job as managing edi-

tor of a print paper on Jeju Island, Korea, were also

new challenges. But OhmyNews Korea is still going

strong and I keep in regular touch with OhmyNews

staffers – many of whom have also gone on to other

things.

Though we were making it up as we went

along, and made our fair share of mistakes along the

way, OMNI thrived on the idealism of our staff, the

owner Mr. Oh Yeon-ho and his investment of time

and (a substantial amount of) money and thousands

of citizen reporters who participated over the years.

We worked hard to develop a new form of interna-

tional cooperative journalism.

Back in early 2004, we were given a couple

of desks and computers in an office separate from

the main Korean newsroom. The Web site was de-

veloped from the Korean system. The back-end in-

terface where all the editing was done was in Ko-

rean.

Since we were OhmyNews International, we

put a lot effort into keeping the operation as close to

Page 7

a 24-hour editing cycle as possible. At first I did all

the heavy lifting but soon we hired copy editors in

the U.S. and later in the U.K. to keep up with the

steady stream of incoming articles. At one point we

had five full time and part timers on call.

We also came up with new ways to use the

Web for collaborative editing (like Google Docs

after Writely was acquired). In fact, it was so effi-

cient that I brought that system with me as manag-

ing editor of my new paper, The Jeju Weekly. Our

whole office is in the cloud.

Speaking of which, upon reflection, now

that I have simply a local news patch, I can appreci-

ate the shear variety of stories our editing staff were

responsible for. We learned so much about the

world from the hundreds of citizen reporters, 99%

of whom I never met in person, who contributed to

our site. Moreover, though we published thousands

of stories, I’m very pleased to say we only had to

deal with a small handful of complaints and/or

threats of litigation – a miracle in my book.

It wasn’t all smooth sailing, of course.

OMNI seemed to be put on the back burner for

other projects like the OhmyNews blog, OhmyNews

Japan and upgrades to the Korean operation (admit-

tedly, the money maker). Our site infrastructure was

Microsoft-centric (just like all of Korea back then).

We also didn’t really know how to make OMNI

profitable and who our target audience could be.

On the positive side, though, we made a lot

of good friends from all over the world and we

banded together to try to get another side of the

news out to a larger audience. OhmyNews Interna-

tional had a very centerist editorial policy (quite

independent of the left-leaning Korean operation)

and we treated our non-Korean citizen reporters the

same as Korean ones in terms of payments.

As for the significance and role OMNI

played overseas I’ll defer to the historians and ex-

perts. Personally, though, working with smart peo-

ple like Tim Savage, Jason Sparapani, Andrew

Petty, Shane Tasker, Yujin Chang and Claire

George was a great privilege. I enjoyed interacting

with all sorts of people – from Afghanistan to Zaire.

The Haubens in particular standout in my mind as

true advocates and friends of OhmyNews. And I was

very pleased to help our citizen reporters build their

portfolios and write recommendation letters to help

them further their studies and get jobs.

I traveled quite a bit around the world for

OhmyNews (Qatar, Moscow and Harvard College

being highlights) and it was striking that a small

company in Korea could build such a recognizable

brand, particularly from 2002 to 2005 when

OhmyNews International had little by way of com-

petition overseas.

I think if we had had access to the social

networking tools of today back in 2004, we might

have been able to parlay our efforts into a success-

ful business. But as it stands, our personal and pro-

fessional networks remain intact (and social, on

Twitter and Facebook) and OMNI’s archive is still

live on the Web.

It was a great ride. Thanks to you all.

OhmyNews Has

Long-Lasting Impacts

on My Life

by Trung Nguyen

tnnguy[email protected]

It was not until I saw Ronda Hauben in Vir-

ginia in October, that I realized how quickly time

had flown. It has been five years since I first met

my fellow citizen reporter-turned-friend at a forum

organized by OhmyNews in Seoul, in 2005.

It was a short visit to Korea but a significant

one which has made long-lasting impacts on my

life. That was the first time I went abroad and at-

tended such a large conference with amazing peo-

ple.

I remember vividly that at one point we

were standing side by side, raising our own national

flags on stage in a huge auditorium in June 2005. I

was so moved as I was representing Vietnam

among dozens of fellow reporters with different

nationalities. At that time, I thought of my two-

month old daughter, saying to myself that I would

try my best to make her proud.

Before that, I made my first speech ever in

front of a large number of other reporters, stressing

that I joined OhmyNews as I wanted to enhance my

reporting skills in English and to expand my net-

work of contacts as well as to seek chances to fur-

ther my studies.

Page 8

It is obvious that by writing for the citizen

news site and reading others’ articles, my writing

skills have improved so much that some pieces that

I contributed to BBC World Service and VOA

News were published on their sites.

It is also through OhmyNews that I have ac-

quired many friendships that I treasure until now.

For a long time, I got access to OhmyNews site at

least once a day, waiting for my articles to be pub-

lished and wondering what story others would write

on that date.

For me, it was like the atmosphere in the

close village where I spent my childhood. People

know you and care about you. I have also been cul-

turally enriched by reading articles from different

corners of the world.

Given the media restriction in my country, I

was excited because of the fact that I could reach

out to the world with my articles. I love the interac-

tive function of OhmyNews as readers could com-

ment on each of my pieces and even wrote directly

to me through email. The Wall Street Journal even

got in touch with me to have an interview relating

to my articles about the Korean ‘cultural wave’ in

Vietnam.

It is undeniable that an online content man-

aging system helped me communicate effectively

with editors just like I was working in a newsroom.

Moreover, thanks to the reference letter of Senior

Editor Todd Thacker, I was awarded a scholarship

to pursue a Masters degree in the U.K., and subse-

quently have chanced to work in the U.S.

It is so sad to hear that OhmyNews English

is no longer operational, but still, I am pleased that I

have some friendships which I believe will last for-

ever.

OMNI Citizen Journalism:

A Good Start to an

Unfinished Journey

by Michael Werbowski

werbowskimichael@yahoo.co.uk

My journey as an OMNI citizen reporter be-

gan back in 2007 with a piece about a UN

biodiversity conference in Brazil. It ended with the

Greek protests of 2010 against austerity measure

being imposed on the country by the E.U. and IMF.

During this transitional period in my life and report-

ing career, I wrote music reviews, did interviews,

and even dabbled in poetry; several were published

on the news site. OMNI gave me an important

venue to express my opinions and also

contextualise news events. This experimental forum

enabled me to “push the envelope” in new direc-

tions. That is, I attempted to write my articles from

a “bottom up” approach, instead of the opposite.

Often in my news reports, commentary etc., I took

the point of view of the citizenry, and how they

might be impacted by events or local happenings.

Often my views were at odds with those peddled by

the corporate media.

This stood out perhaps in my “on-site” re-

ports on international issues which often had great

local impact. Such as the building of a radar station

in a small Czech village. The issue was extremely

controversial at the time, and also looked as if

NATO would have the installation built there. But

tremendous public pressure and organised opposi-

tion managed to prevent the radar project to get of

the ground, which was to be located on a nationally

protected park land. I recall visiting the village and

then taking to the locals for OMNI. The report, I

found out later, made a huge impact and was com-

mented on several Czech blogs. Hence, I become

aware of the positive influence citizen journalism

and in particular OMNI, had on developments

whose outcome almost seemed to be predestined or

pre-determined.

As an OMNI citizen reporter, I also felt that

covering news stories was more of a mission than

and not just profession. I took up causes related to

environmental issues, such as the annual Canadian

seal slaughter. Most of my OMNI pieces were un-

abashedly opinionated, and I became a regular com-

mentator on international issues and events. I tried

not to let factual clarity be distorted by my perhaps

biased views. There were many pieces which were

written not so much with objectivity in mind, but

more of a sense of duty to raise awareness on a

topic left out of the mainstream media. Deaths re-

lated to police incidents involving individuals re-

strained by ‘tasers’ for instance. This was under

reported at the time in North America.

While writing for OMNI, I embarked on a

“Quo Vadis” series of articles. Each one usually

Page 9

examined the state of an international organisation,

or country which was in the news at the time.

Again, being with OMNI at the time gave me great

flexibility and freedom to analyse, delve into, and

hopefully spur discussion on the topics I raised in

my writings.

One of the more memorable OMNI report-

ing experiences was during the 2007, Turkish legis-

lative elections. Just after returning from the OMNI

Citizens’ Forum meeting in Seoul, I came to Istan-

bul, Turkey. There I immediately plunged into the

pre-electoral frenzy in the country. My reports

where filed in “real time” and the final elections

results and projection results were dispatched as

quickly as those filed by major news agencies. This

time, I realised it was possible to compete with the

“big guys” in the business with very limited re-

sources.

There are of course drawbacks to citizen

journalism such as OMNI. Working without a dead-

line can be tedious, as you have to constantly moti-

vate yourself to get a story out.

The reward (remuneration) is minimal.

Moreover, a CJ’s resources are very restricted, in

the sense he or she lacks a newspapers’ usual net-

work of vast contact and immediate access to those

‘in the loop.” However, in my three years as an

OMNI citizen reporter, I was able to improve and

refine my reporting skills and at the same time per-

haps make a difference in the world. In this sense

my days at OMNI were a rewarding part of my life.

Dec, 2010, Vienna Austria

OMNI and Reporting from

the United Nations

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

I learned about OhmyNews from an article in

the Financial Times in February 2003, when Roh

Moo-hyun took office as the President in South Ko-

rea. The article I saw described how the netizens of

South Korea had elected the President of the

country. After reading the article, I posted on a rele-

vant Usenet newsgroup asking for more background

on this. I soon learned about how online users who

considered themselves netizens, with the support of

the Internet newspaper OhmyNews, had worked to

nominate and support the Roh Moo-hyun

candidacy.

One of the netizens who responded to my

post, helped me to make contact with someone who

worked on OhmyNews. He had written an article in

English describing how the newspaper had been

founded. As I did research and learned about

OhmyNews I realized that the Howard Dean cam-

paign for the nomination to run for U.S. President

on the Democratic Party ticket had similar charac-

teristics. I wrote an article comparing the Roh Moo-

hyun campaign and the Dean campaign. My article

was translated into Korean and published in

OhmyNews in English and Korean several months

before the International, English language edition

began.

Subsequently I learned that OhmyNews was

planning an English language edition. I continued to

submit articles which were published. A few

months later, the English edition was started and I

was able to register to submit my articles on my

own.

When the editorial staff was increased, it

also became possible to become a featured writer. I

became the first female featured writer for the Eng-

lish language edition of OhmyNews.

By October 2006 the second 5 year term for

Kofi Annan as the Secretary General of the United

Nations was soon to end, one of the main contend-

ers to become the 8th Secretary General of the UN

was the Foreign Minister of South Korea, Ban Ki-

moon.

I had gone to one United Nations event on a

press pass I was able to get based on my writing for

Telepolis, and the experience proved very interest-

ing. This event was the World Summit on Informa-

tion Society (WSIS) which took place in Tunis, Tu-

nisia in November 2005. Also I had watched with

interest some of the press reports of the speeches

made by heads of state at the 2006 opening of the

General Assembly session. I thought that it might

be interesting to go to the UN and cover the activi-

ties for OhmyNews if the new Secretary General

would be the Korean candidate.

On October 9, 2006, Ban Ki-moon won the

Security Council nomination. This nomination was

to be approved by the General Assembly on Octo-

ber 13.

Page 10

I thought this would be a historic event for

South Korea. I asked OhmyNews International if I

could get a letter for a press credential for the UN.

They said yes and I was able to get my credential in

time to go to the General Assembly meeting when

the General Assembly voted to accept the Security

Council’s nomination of Ban Ki-moon.

I was surprised that some of the speeches

welcoming Ban as the Secretary General elect were

speeches critical of the domination of UN proce-

dures and activities by the Security Council. Also I

was surprised that the U.S. Ambassador to the UN,

John Bolton, made no pretense of both welcoming

Ban and of expressing his dissatisfaction with Kofi

Annan, the outgoing Secretary General.

It was a thrill, however, to be at the UN wit-

nessing the vote for a new Secretary General who

was from South Korea. I wondered if the Internet

would be able to have any impact on Ban and on

what happened at the United Nations, since the

Internet had been able to make it possible for

netizens in South Korea to impact politics.

The very next day after Ban’s nomination

was approved by the General Assembly of the UN,

the Security Council took up the recent nuclear test

by North Korea. The Security Council voted for

sanctions on North Korea, not giving the North Ko-

rean Ambassador to the UN, Pak Gil Yon a chance

to respond until after the sanctions had been voted

on.

It impressed me that just as a new Secretary

General from South Korea was being chosen as the

new Secretary General of the UN, at the same time

sanctions were being imposed on North Korea.

I wrote an article about the election of Ban

Ki-moon as the 8th Secretary General, documenting

some of the problems I became aware of that were

raised in the welcoming speeches. The article, "The

Problem Facing the UN." was carried in English in

the weekly Korean print edition, as well as in the

online English edition.

January 2, 2007 was Ban Ki-moon’s first

day at the United Nations building as the new Sec-

retary General. He came down to the staff cafeteria

to eat his lunch, with his communications staff per-

son. I saw them standing near where I was eating

and invited them to sit with me. They looked a bit

lost, and smiled at my offer, but sat at the next table

which was larger and more in the center of that area

of the cafeteria. Some UN staff people saw them

and sat at the other end of their table, appearing to

be timid about sitting near the Secretary General.

Other people came over and spoke to them standing

up, greeting them and joking about how the cafete-

ria should carry kimchi, the national Korean food.

I decided to ask if I could join them. They

said yes. I sat down and spoke briefly to Ban, ex-

plaining I was from OhmyNews International, the

English edition of the Korean OhmyNews. He said

he knew OhmyNews and had been interviewed by

reporters from it.

Also he said he hoped the press would treat

him kindly. His communications staff person did

not seem too happy with my sitting with them, so I

soon left. Ban briefly motioned me to come back

and we spoke for a few more minutes. I wrote an

article about this experience which was then trans-

lated into Korean, and published in both the Korean

and English editions of OhmyNews.

In general I paid attention to Security Coun-

cil developments, particularly with regard to the

meetings imposing sanctions on North Korea and

then Iran. I also particularly followed the meetings

of the Security Council and the General Assembly

when Security Council reform was being discussed.

The Six-Party Talks and the Banco

Delta Asia Story

In January 2007 there were reports in the

press about a meeting that had taken place between

Christopher Hill, the Assistant Secretary of State for

the U.S. and Kim Kye-gwan, the Deputy Foreign

Minister of North Korea.

By way of background, an agreement had

been reached on September 19, 2005 between the

six parties to the talks about the denuclearization of

the Korean peninsula. The six parties were North

Korea, South Korea, the U.S., Japan, Russia and

China. Shortly after the agreement was announced

in Sept 2005, the U.S. Treasury Department

announced that it was freezing the assets of the

Banco Delta Asia (BDA) a bank in Macao, China,

which held $25 million of North Korean funds.

The result of this action was that North Ko-

rea lost access to these funds, and also to the use of

the international banking system. North Korea’s

response was to leave the 6-party talks in protest of

this action which it considered hostile and politi-

cally motivated.

Page 11

In July 2006, North Korea tested a missile.

On October 9, 2006, North Korea carried out a test

of a nuclear device.

On January 16 and 17, 2007, Hill and Kim

held talks in Berlin and came to an agreement.

Though not officially announced, it is believed that

the agreement was that the $25 million being held

in the Macau BDA, along with access to the inter-

national banking system would be restored to North

Korea. In exchange North Korea would return to the

6 party talks. The Berlin meeting broke the dead-

lock and the 6 party talks were held again starting

on February 8, 2007. An agreement was announced

five days later on February 13, 2007.

On March 5 and 6, Hill and Kim held bilat-

eral talks in New York City.

Despite the agreement reached in Berlin,

however, the U.S. Treasury Department issued a

finding on March 19 against the BDA under Section

311 of the U.S. Patriot Act. This move again dead-

locked the 6 party talks, even as the delegates ar-

rived for the talks in Beijing. The deadlock contin-

ued for the next few months, with much of the

mainstream U.S. press blaming North Korea for

continuing to insist that its $25 million be returned,

via a banking transaction, before it would agree to

any further steps in the 6 party talks. The North Ko-

rean delegate said he understood that the agreement

in Berlin with Christopher Hill had provided for the

return of the $25 million from the BDA as a money

transfer via the international banking system. The

U.S. Treasury Department officials claimed that

their decision against the BDA left it up to the bank

to return the funds. The decision against the bank,

however, meant that it had no means to return the

funds as a money transfer as the Section 311 find-

ing against the bank meant that it lost access to the

international banking system.

During this period, there were rumors that a

bank had been asked by the U.S. State Department

to make the transfer. The bank allegedly considered

the request. Eventually, however, the bank refused

based on its fear that it too would be frozen out of

the international banking system by the U.S. Trea-

sury Department, as the BDA had been, if it offered

to help make the transfer of funds back to North

Korea.

The McClatchy newspapers, in a way that is

different from much of the rest of the mainstream

media, carried articles which helped to reveal the

issues underlying this dispute between the U.S. and

North Korea.

One of the McClatchy newspaper articles

described some documents the newspaper had

acquired including a complaint to the U.S. Treasury

Department protesting the decision against the

bank. Also there was an article in the paper discuss-

ing the function of the bank in helping North Korea

sell its gold. Other banks in Macau, the article indi-

cated, had played a similar role with regard to North

Korea, but only the BDA had been singled out for

sanctions. The article suggested that the U.S. Trea-

sury Department’s actions were not based on actual

criminal activity by the bank or by North Korea, but

for some political purpose.

The McClatchy newspaper article had re-

ferred to legal documents filed by the owner of the

BDA. I tried to find a way to get a copy of the doc-

uments. I tried to contact the law firm and even

wrote to the McClatchy reporter, but none of these

efforts succeeded.

I did, however, find a copy of the Patriot Act

on the Internet, and read section 311, the section

being used against the bank. I was able to see that

the section of the law was such that the U.S. gov-

ernment did not have to present any proof for its

actions.

In March 2007, I did a story documenting

how the use of Section 311 of the Patriot Act

against the bank was a political act, rather than a

criminal determination. The U.S. Treasury Depart-

ment did not have to provide any evidence and

acted as the accuser and judge in the case. (“North

Korea’s $25 Million and Banco Delta Asia”)

The stalemate continued for a number of

months.

In May 2007 Chris Hill gave a short talk at a

dinner celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Korea

Society. I was able to attend as press. He indicated

that he would persevere until a means was found to

break the impasse over the $25 million dollars so as

to make it possible for the 6 party talks to continue.

There were several Korean journalists cov-

ering the event for their publications. They were

particularly interested in what Hill said, but Hill’s

talk in itself didn’t seem to represent a newsworthy

event.

In the next few days, however, it appeared

that an important story was developing.

Page 12

I again found a helpful article in the

McClatchy newspapers which referred to a blog

which was providing background on the issues in-

volved in the BDA situation. The blog was called

“China Matters” written by an anonymous blogger

who goes by the pseudonym China Hand.

The blog had put online copies of the BDA

legal petition challenging the finding against the

bank and a statement by the bank owner. The blog

also gave a link to the web site for a Congressional

hearing that referred to the aims and practices of the

U.S. Treasury Department in freezing North Korean

funds.

I now had copies of several significant docu-

ments in the BDA the story. The U.S. government’s

findings were general statements providing no spe-

cific evidence of wrong doing on the part of the

bank. The bank’s explanation refuted the Treasury

Department’s charges of illegal activity. The refuta-

tion also helped to demonstrate the political motiva-

tion for the U.S. government’s allegations rather

than any actual illegal activity on the part of the

bank. The U.S. government had targeted a small

Macau bank to scare the many banks in China. “To

kill the chicken to scare the monkeys,” as the gov-

ernment document explained, quoting an old Chi-

nese proverb.

At last I had the news peg for an important

story. I wrote an article, submitting it around 5 a.m.

my time to OhmyNews International, using the soft-

ware provided for submitting articles. By noon the

next day, my story appeared. That was May 18.

Also on May 18, the Wall Street Journal

carried an Op Ed by the former U.S. Ambassador to

the UN, John Bolton. The article scolded the U.S.

government for negotiating to return the $25 mil-

lion to North Korea.

In late May I was an invited speaker at the

International Communications Association (ICA

2007) conference in San Francisco. I summed up

my experience writing for OhmyNews Interna-

tional, particularly describing the BDA story. I

ended my talk saying:

There is not yet an OhmyNews in the U.S.

So my story about the connection of the

U.S. government’s policy toward China and

the U.S. government actions against the

BDA is not yet likely to be able to impact

how the mainstream news in the U.S. frames

the story with North Korea and the six-party

talks. But the need for a U.S. model of

OhmyNews becomes all the more urgent

when one has the experience of exploring

what it could make possible.

Voice Of America News

Little did I realize when I gave my talk in

San Francisco, however, that my experience with

this story was not ending, but actually a new epi-

sode was beginning.

When I returned home from the ICA 2007, I

decided to do a follow-up story to the two earlier

stories I had done about the BDA issue. I wrote an

article comparing what was being required in the

BDA situation to what had happened with the

WMD pretext the U.S. used to justify the invasion

of Iraq.

A short time later, on June 11, I found a sur-

prising email in my mailbox. The email was from a

reporter who said she worked for Voice of America

News Korea (VOA News Korean Service). VOA is

the official U.S. government news broadcasting ser-

vice.

She began:

Hello Ms. Hauben

She introduced herself as a reporter with the

Korean service of the Voice of America News in

Washington D.C.

Her email continued:

While I was working on a story about BDA

issue, I read your report, ‘Behind the Black-

listing of Banco Delta Asia.’ I thought you

made some valuable points about the BDA

issue in this report, I was wondering if I

could have a conversation with you in this

matter. Since I am on deadline, I’m trying

very hard to get a hold of you. So I would

really appreciate it if you call or email me

back ASAP.

She gave her phone number.

The VOA News is now part of the U.S.

State Department. I wondered if it was advisable to

speak with her as VOA News has a reputation of

being a promoter of U.S. government policy, rather

than a news service seeking the facts. I asked my

editors at OhmyNews International and also spoke

with a Korean journalist I know who covers stories

at the U.N. for another Korean newspaper. They all

encouraged me to speak with her.

Page 13

I called her as she had asked. She said she

wanted to interview me by phone. I asked her to let

me know what she would want to speak with me

about. She sent me an email elaborating.

Her email explained:

The questions I am planning to ask you dur-

ing the interview are going to be about both

the content of your article and how you did

it. Although I’d like to ask you, first of all,

how you came up with the idea of writing

this article, the focus of this interview is not

just on how you prepared the article.

The purpose of this interview is to let our

listeners know what is going on regarding

the BDA issue and how the BDA issue is

developing. When I read your article, I

thought you made valuable and critical

points about the BDA issue, and I thought it

might be very important to let your idea

about the BDA issue be heard by our listen-

ers.

She listed questions she would ask me in the

interview:

1. How you came up with the idea of writing

this article? How you prepared it? About

your sources.

2. Briefly summarize your findings or main

points of the article?

3. What you are trying to accomplish by

writing this article? What needs to be done

to resolve the BDA issue?

Finally, I wanted to ask you if we could do

this interview sometime between 9am and

9:30am…. Thanks again,

she wrote ending the email.

She called at the arranged time. We had a

half hour telephone conversation discussing my sto-

ries, the sources I had used and the problem repre-

sented by the American government freezing the

BDA funds. She also asked for the URLs to follow

up on the sources I had cited. These were basically

material I had found on the Internet, including sev-

eral government documents, and copies of the legal

documents submitted by the Bank owner to appeal

the Treasury Department ruling against the Bank.

The VOA News reporter said she was

interested in contacting the former U.S. government

officials who were responsible for crafting the plan

to freeze North Korea’s bank account assets. She

wanted to ask them to respond to my article.

Just as this contact with the VOA News

journalist was happening, there were news stories

describing the ongoing efforts to find a solution to

the roadblock that the frozen North Korean funds

represented.

Soon there were reports that the Federal Re-

serve Bank of New York had agreed to transfer the

funds from the BDA to an account held by a Rus-

sian bank for North Korea. In the following weeks,

the funds transfer was done.

The VOA News reporter wrote me saying

she had other stories to do and was not for now go-

ing to pursue this story any longer.

Regardless of her motivation, however, the

VOA News reporter had contacted me before the

situation was resolved. Whether the contact had any

impact on the resolution I can only speculate. At the

very least, the articles I had done had caught the

attention of someone at the Voice of America News

which is part of the U.S. State Dept. I was given the

chance to explain how I framed the BDA story and

to explain how I understood the controversy sur-

rounding it.

So my story did indeed have some impact

and more than I had thought possible when I gave

my talk at the ICA 207 in San Francisco.

The reason I have taken the time to tell this

story is that it represents for me a taste of the power

that such online journalism makes possible.

OMNI – Thanks for

the Memory

by John McFarland

mcfarland.work@gmail.com

Even though I haven’t done any serious

copy editing since my two very enjoyable years

with OMNI and Associates (Eugene Chang, Todd

Thacker, Tim Savage and Claire George), I’ve re-

tained the sense of creativity combined with cap-

tiousness that helped me define copy editing from a

citizen journalism (CJ) perspective. I’ve kept my

edited pieces in a stack that got be nine inches high.

Page 14

Getting assignments, mostly from Eugene, I

never knew what would be coming next – first-hand

reports of the Nepalese civil war from native speak-

ers that had the feel of being machine translations,

as did many submissions from CJs in developing

countries; summary reports of cricket matches, usu-

ally between South Africa & Pakistan. Having less

knowledge of cricket than I did of water polo, I had

to bluff my way through, (with a lot of help from

Google); a report I especially remember was of a

typhoon menacing Vietnam in real-time, which

meant a feverish turnaround, and many others.

Points for CJs to consider:

a) Are we willing to direct our work toward

a particular market we’ve identified and to satisfy a

corresponding audience? How will we pick our sto-

ries? I know this sounds a bit like professionalese,

but it can only help our credibility.

b) Can CJs focus on investigative journal-

ism? I like to think we would have more advantage

in garnering information by word of mouth about

abuses than would professionals flashing a press

card.

c) Could CJs come to recognize our com-

mon interests in forming a cooperative with other

CJs, to form a kind of democratized OMNI? As far

as I know, the cooperative control of online news-

papers has yet to take off. 1) We have to define CJ

more precisely and not just as the output of ‘volun-

teers’ or ‘amateurs.’ A stock put-down of citizen

journalism has been: would we willingly drive a car

‘citizen’ judge? These nonsensical slurs are directed

toward straw men of the critics’ imagination. 2)

Could the great IF Stone, an expert journalist if

there ever was one, be considered a CJ, relying as

he did solely on his readers’ subscriptions & dona-

tions? An established CJ might develop into another

IF Stone without sacrificing our amateur status. 3)

Hmm, ‘amateur’ – applies to an activity undertaken

solely for its own sake. CJs can certainly be ama-

teurs without necessarily producing ‘amateurish’

work.

d) Are professional journalists necessarily

‘expert’?

e) Would it be doable to embed CJs in addi-

tion to professionals, say, in a situation of social

unrest?

The Plight of Participatory

Journalism

in the Post Dot-Com Era

by John Horvath

[email protected]

Without exception all sectors of society suf-

fered as a result of the financial crisis of 2008, al-

beit some more than others. Indeed, the negative

effects were not always so obvious. A case in point

is that of citizen journalism and its variants. Indubi-

tably, the decline of citizen journalism is a process

that has been ongoing for the past several years; the

financial crisis merely quickened and deepened this

process somewhat.

It’s generally assumed that the rise of citizen

journalism coincided with the so-called “digital rev-

olution” of the late 1990s. This is a common mis-

take, foremost because the rapid expansion of infor-

mation and communications technology (ICT) indu-

bitably aided in the rapid expansion of citizen jour-

nalism both in terms of consumption and produc-

tion. Yet despite the positive effects technology has

had on citizen journalism, it nevertheless has deep

roots and is not necessarily associated with ICT.

Indeed, the notion that citizen journalism and ICT

are intractably linked is a common myth which ends

up confusing and complicating our understanding of

what citizen journalism really is.

While it can’t be said that ICT led to the

creation of citizen journalism in and of itself, it

nonetheless did give rise to a unique subset of it:

participatory journalism.* As the notion of citizen

journalism began to fragment in the Third Millen-

nium in conjunction with the advancement of ICT

as newer forms of expression began to clog the so-

called “information superhighway”, participatory

journalism increasingly came to represent what citi-

zen journalism had initially stood for. The main

difference between the two is that ICT is an integral

component of participatory journalism.

Given the online nature of participatory

journalism, this form of information production and

consumption is inherently fragile, so much so that

the political and economic stresses of the past few

years have had a devastating effect. The rise and

fall of OhmyNews International (OMNI) perhaps

best reflects this sad state of affairs.

Page 15

This South Korean online publication was

unique in many respects. First and foremost it pro-

vided an additional outlet for those already working

in the area of citizen journalism while at the same

time making it easy for those who had no journalis-

tic experience whatsoever. Unlike publications such

as Telepolis or Toward Freedom, both of which fit

the classic mould of citizen journalism, OMNI was

open to all and accessible “from the street”. To be-

come a member of the OMNI community was sim-

ple and straightforward: a plain registration process

and account-like structure enabled anyone to be-

come a writer for the Korean-based publication,

rendering the concept of journalism as truly partici-

patory. In conjunction with this the editorial process

(something which markedly differentiates participa-

tory journalism from other forms of online expres-

sion such as blogs) conveniently operated in the

background. As a result, writers for OMNI weren’t

bothered by the pressures and constraints of the pro-

fession, something which invariably affects the

work of conventional journalists.

What helped to make OMNI truly participa-

tory was the fact that writers were offered more av-

enues for exposure and feedback. As a result, the

payment for published articles was not a major fac-

tor. Indeed, for those living in Europe and North

America the amount received per article would

make such an endeavor appear not worthwhile if

one was to solely make a living from it. On the

other hand, OMNI somehow was able to extend its

reach globally, to the extent that articles often

reached audiences as far as Europe, North America,

and Australia. Furthermore, articles which appeared

on OMNI were often cited by major mainstream

media outlets. Other similar sites, such as Telepolis

(Germany), Orato (Canada), or Toward Freedom

(U.S.), were only able to extend their reach to local

and niche areas. Thus, some writers took advantage

of the fact that OMNI provided additional exposure

to areas they would otherwise not have had.

In addition to widespread exposure, another

advantage for authors who wrote for OMNI was that

it brought readers and writers closer together,

thereby reinforcing further its participatory aspect.

For example, the ability of writers to immediately

view the number of times an article was read helped

to provide instant feedback as to what subjects were

of interest to readers. Likewise, the ability of read-

ers to directly contact writers through the site

helped to bring both sides of the media equation

together. Not only did OMNI’s own message center

help to preserve the privacy of journalists, readers

were also provided with instant and direct access to

authors. This is something which is increasingly

missing from the spotlight and applause associated

with mainstream, professional journalism. It goes

without saying that the discourse generated as a re-

sult often ended up providing new and alternative

ideas for articles.

While for many the amount paid to writers

wasn’t the primary motive for contributing to

OMNI, for others it was nonetheless important.

These writers were foremost from developing coun-

tries. In a way, the mix of different writers from

such different backgrounds – political, economic,

and social – further added to the unique character of

the articles featured on OMNI as well as the civic

discourse it stimulated. Along these lines, the idea

of readers tipping authors for articles they liked was

an interesting experiment that provided a concep-

tual framework for an alternative means of funding.

Furthermore, the OMNI cyber cash system helped

to reinforce the independent nature of writers by

making the business side of things transparent.

In the end, however, survival ultimately

became dependent on the question of finance. The

unique model introduced by OMNI has been unable

to overcome this universal axiom. Not only was the

practice of tipping for an article not very wide-

spread, but the concept was unable to properly de-

velop given the economic realities in wake of the

financial crisis in 2008. To be fair, this wasn’t only

a problem for OMNI; even organizations with more

traditional forms of funding, such as Telepolis or

Toward Freedom, have been suffering and trying to

find ways to overcome the problem of providing

quality content online for free.

In many ways, this problem lies at the heart

of citizen journalism in general and reflects its Jef-

fersonian nature. The Jefferson ideal of the “gentle-

man farmer” is very much applicable in this case.

This ideal is centered on the notion that individual

self-interest can be tempered through self-suffi-

ciency. In a democracy this helps to reinforce the

communal and participatory nature of the political

system. Similarly, in terms of online media people

are more likely to pay for content if they happen to

be fiscally secure.

Page 16

With the increased stresses brought about by

the financial crises of 2008, however, this ideal

(which in many ways is still in its embryonic stage

in terms of citizen journalism) came under enor-

mous pressure. In place of self-sufficiency as a reg-

ulator of self-interest, the financial crisis of 2008

intensified the desire to get as much as possible at

the lowest possible cost – be it physical, intellec-

tual, or even emotional capital. Voluntarily paying

for online content, therefore, was a concept whose

time has yet to come.

In addition to this, the challenges faced

nowadays by those claiming to be citizen journalists

are in many ways reflective of the present dilemma

faced by democracies around the world. In essence,

democracy is in crisis, caught between the opposing

forces of tyranny on the one hand and mob rule in

the other. Hence, in much the same way, participa-

tory journalism has been undermined by opposing

forces, with professional journalism (representative

of tyranny) pulling in one direction and blogs and

social networking sites (representative of mob rule)

pulling in the other. In effect, many of those which

started out with a strong commitment to making

journalism participatory have in due course been

compromised to various degrees by either striving

to become more professional or succumbing to fi-

nancial pressures and thus becoming nothing more

than an elaborate blog in a futile race to the bottom.

All the same, this doesn’t fully explain or

excuse the decisions taken by some in their re-

sponse to an ever-changing media landscape. In the

case of OMNI, while the attempt to build a truly

participatory form of journalism eventually ended

in failure, it nevertheless provided a unique exam-

ple of how such a model can function. At the tech-

nical and operative levels OMNI seemed to fulfill

the requirements of what would be expected of an

organization committed to the notion of participa-

tory journalism. The editorial level, meanwhile, was

perhaps in need of a little more refinement as it was-

n’t always clear to writers why some articles ap-

peared more favorable than others, this given the

fact that articles which were more popular with

readers didn’t always find themselves on the “front

page”.

There is no doubt that the biggest problem

facing citizen journalism in general, and that of par-

ticipatory journalism in particular, remains the

enigma of funding. The Internet is anything but a

level playing field. Unfortunately, some of the

unique alternatives introduced by OMNI to help pay

for content, such as tipping, ended up being more

useful as a means of feedback rather than remunera-

tion. The problem, therefore, remains acute: only

when both readers and writers alike are able to

break free from the constraints of economics can

attempts at participatory journalism have a chance

to succeed.

For now, OMNI and others appear to have

retreated from their original position. This may be

just a temporary condition; whether or not they rise

again to the challenge, or others move in to take

their place, depends on how well they are able to

reconcile the future in light of the past.

*The author is making the distinction between letters-to-the-

editor, pamphlets, leaflets, newsletters and other forms of pa-

per citizen journalism and the enhanced form of such journal-

ism made possible by the internet. The latter he calls ‘participa-

tory journalism’.

OMNI’s Focus Was

Too Broad?

by Claire George

chlgeorg[email protected]

What do the New York Knicks and citizen

journalism (CJ) have in common? They both attract

fanatical devotion. During my time working as an

assistant editor for OhmyNews International

(OMNI) [2006-7] citizen journalism was being spo-

ken of as the antidote to the world’s ills. This atti-

tude was probably at least partly responsible for the

anti-CJ backlash in the mainstream press. It looked

too puppyish. It rubbed mainstream journalists the

wrong way.

It’s easy to understand why everyone was so

excited. The media had previously been closed off

to people who lacked the opportunity to get into

paid journalism. Everyone knew that news agencies

were ignoring important stories because they were

not deemed interesting enough. In London

researchers found that journalists were prioritising

the stories that were most relevant to their target

audiences. So when citizen journalism appeared on

the scene it was just plain cool. For the first time

anyone, anywhere, could report on anything.

Page 17

In my work behind the scenes at OMNI, I

was excited but also disappointed. We had no con-

trol over what type of stories were reported on, so

readers never knew what to expect when they came

to the website. This was great for citizen journalism

fans because they valued the unpredictability of CJ

content; but it prevented OMNI from building up a

mainstream readership. Websites attract readers

when they have a consistent theme. Korean

OhmyNews is still with us because readers know it

is about Korean current affairs. OMNI’s remit was

too broad. It attempted to cover every country in the

world and it had no theme. That is why it couldn’t

survive without the support of the South Korean

mothership.

I was also disappointed because on some

days OMNI carried very little real reporting. Like

the mainstream press we published a lot of opinion

pieces. Sitting at my desk I would often find myself

thinking “oh no, please no, not another five anti-

Iraq war stories.” Citizen journalism is supposed to

be about the first hand experience of reporters.

When reporters are simply giving their opinions on

stories they have read in the newspapers, that is

blogging. Opinion-led blogging is important and

often politically influential, but it isn’t citizen jour-

nalism. If we had been 100% firsthand reporting I

believe that would have attracted more readers and

more respect from paid journalists.

If OMNI had been given more time and

money it could have been developed into a com-

mercially successful website without betraying its

CJ credentials. It needed a larger editorial staff so

that more reporters could be coached in how to

write about what they saw with their own eyes. A

larger OMNI consisting of sections with fixed

themes would have given the site the consistency

that attracts readers. OMNI never developed in that

way because it was understaffed. All our energies

were devoted to sub-editing stories and putting

them on the website. For many years the website

ran with just one hardworking editor. I imagine he

must have been hallucinating verbs by the end of

each working week.

Genuine citizen reporting really does de-

serve our puppyish excitement. It is hard work and

it is a wonderful thing when citizens give up their

time and energy to do it. I can say that with my

hand on heart because I am not a reporter. I dabbled

in citizen reporting and lacked the dedication to it

properly. I can admire citizen reporters in the same

way that I admire athletes. I can see their value be-

cause they do what I cannot. I wonder if that’s why

reporters in the mainstream press seem to have dif-

ficulty appreciating them. Maybe they are too close

and too similar, like siblings.

OMNI’s Legacy

by Proloy Bagchi

proloy[email protected]

The call of the Amateur Computerist for an

article on OhmyNews International (OMNI) set me

thinking as to how I landed on this South Korean

site. I am, after all, from small-town India, from a

place known as Bhopal which happens to be the

capital of the central Indian province of Madhya

Pradesh, mostly unknown to the world, barring, per-

haps, for the wrong reason of being the site of the

world’s worst industrial disaster in 1984.

Notwithstanding the place’s rather uncom-

fortable recent history, I chose this town to spend

the rest of my life after retirement from one of the

civil services of India. Soon enough, because of a

somewhat acute sensitivity, I started writing on lo-

cal civic and other issues in the city-supplement of

a national daily. This continued for as many as six

years – give or take a few months. I was lucky as

the resident editor was enlightened and inde-

pendent-minded, free from any hang-ups. If he saw

an unsolicited piece, found it relevant and well-

written, he would promptly publish it in his column

reserved for guest-writers. He had a certain affinity

for the town for the civic improvement of which

others and I used to write. The pieces would hit out

at the local civic administration or the provincial

government, sometimes even its ministers but the

editor wouldn’t squirm in his seat. He apparently

took it as a service to the community, and that, in-

deed, had somewhat of an impact.

Like everything else in life, all this had to

change and that happened when the editor opted for

greener pastures. The ones who succeeded him did

not seem to have, firstly, that attachment for the

town and, secondly, they, seemingly, did not wish

to ruffle any feathers in the administration. In the

process, the contributions, which more often than

Page 18

not had some criticism of the administration, would

invariably go to the bin. I got the message soon

enough and I stopped sending my pieces to the

newspaper. Around that time a features’ syndicate

which used to take my other contributions also

folded up. I had, therefore, necessarily to look for

alternative outlets for my, one might say, outpour-

ings.

That is when I looked for online sites and

found an Indian one – merinews.com. The uploaded

pieces would be subjected to an editorial scrutiny

and then would be published. Finding a decent re-

sponse from online readers I started looking for

more such sites. After all, what a citizen journalist

wants is a greater access to readers, wherever they

might be. That is when I decided to go transnational

and, lo and behold, landed on OMNI. I didn’t know

that it was a Korean site, though I did find the name

“OhmyNews” a little peculiar. As long as it

accepted English language write-ups, it served my

purpose.

I was frightfully impressed when I saw the

site the first time. It had everything in it that one

could wish for in a newspaper. Politics, diplomacy,

environment, entertainment, women’s issues, tech-

nology, art and life, you name it and it had all that.

What’s more, located far away in the tiny peninsula

of Korea in the Far East it would cover the entire

world – all the continents and countries and their

regions. Contributions came to it from world over.

It had news and it also had analytical views that

were published, more importantly, shorn of all petty

considerations of politics, commerce or suchlike. It

asked for nothing except decency, objectivity and

integrity in reporting matters that could improve

and help communities and enhance the knowledge

of their constituents. I found it a clean and sanitised

journal – virtually verging on to the ideal.

I, for one, had very happy experiences with

it. I would upload stuff that pertained to my city or

the province I lived in and it would be published for

whatever it was worth without any alteration. I even

uploaded some of my reminiscences which too were

published. All these got pretty large number of hits,

were read and even commented upon.

OMNI surely set off a trend and today there

are any number of English language citizen journal-

ist sites in India and abroad. I have been contribut-

ing to quite a few of them located in India, the US

and elsewhere. There is one which apparently is so

fastidious about non-partisan reporting (obviously

from non-professionals) that it calls itself “The

Third Report” and its reporters “third men”. There

is another that encourages journalism students to

hone their skills and provides an outlet to the non-

profits. The basic idea behind these sites seems to

be to provide platforms to non-professionals having

access to news for reporting and analysing the same

in an unbiased manner. What the reader gets, there-

fore, is a view that is not blinkered or even doctored

to serve any interest. It is pure and unadulterated –

originating from, what one might call, the ground

level.

Infected as it is by interests of various kinds

which could range from political to corporate or

commercial, the mainstream media has its own

agenda to promote and pursue. Recent develop-

ments in India have brought out in bold relief the

kind of acute infection its media suffers from.

Leave alone the promoters, even established and

well-regarded editors were found wanting in integ-

rity – lobbying for a particular politician to harvest

benefits for certain corporates. The facts were kept

well under wraps by virtually every Indian print or

electronic media house – however, they could not

do so for long as ‘chatterati’ on the net induced an

explosion that blew in their face.

No wonder people are turning to online

news sites, particularly the citizen journalist sites

like what OMNI was which, seemingly, unwittingly

spawned a movement of a kind for dissemination of

neutral and unbiased news and views. These sites

are likely to remain the only option for voicing hon-

est and non-partisan opinions – until of course the

same distracting overbearing interests are able to

take control over them. Hopefully, however, there

will always be an OMNI or a “Third Report” or a

“GroundReport” around to provide alternative

sources of information. Surely, the trend set off by

Mr. Oh Yeon-ho will be carried forward.

Page 19

Showcasing the Concept

“Every Citizen Is a Reporter”

to the World

by Ulla Rannikko*

This article discusses the strengths and limi-

tations of OhmyNews International (OMNI) from

my point of view as a researcher, who studied this

English-language edition of OhmyNews alongside

two other participatory media organisations in the

latter half of the 2000s. The analysis draws on re-

search interviews with the USA-based reporters of

OMNI and its staff, and on the observations that I

made during the OMNI Citizen Reporters’ Forum in

Seoul in summer 2007. It is hoped that the article

feeds into a discussion about the viability and value

of an online participatory news media that is inter-

national in scope.

OMNI was launched in 2004 to showcase

the concept of OhmyNews – every citizen is a re-

porter** – to a potentially global audience and to

people who wanted and were able to write articles

for OMNI in English. While Seoul-based

OhmyNews (OMN) had been catering rather suc-

cessfully for Korean-speaking readers and contribu-

tors, whether in South Korea or abroad, OMNI

hoped to bring together news, views and analysis

from a range of reporters from around the world.

Not just striving to be a global news website

informing its readers about a variety of issues that

affect people in their localities from their points of

view, which in itself can be seen as an ambitious

undertaking, OMNI had the potential to facilitate

people’s engagement in discussions following arti-

cles and to encourage the formation of networks

among reporters and between them and their read-

ers, as it was possible to send messages directly to

the reporters via the website.

It appears that the momentum that led to

conceiving the international edition in 2004 was at

least in part created by increased interest in OMN

outside of South Korea. Unsurprisingly, the focus of

much of the news coverage by well-known news

organisations such as The New York Times and the

BBC was on OMN’s revolutionary approach to pro-

ducing news online; that is, how the website, the

content of which is edited by professional editors,

combines articles written by ordinary people and

staff reporters. However, OMNI, albeit arguably a

showcase, differed from the South Korean edition.

Although OMNI had editors, it was not feasible to

employ in-house journalists who would cover

events as they unfold because of its broad geo-

graphic reach. For the same reason OMNI was un-

able to organise training sessions for its reporters,

unlike OMN which teaches reporters in its own

journalism school near the capital of South Korea,

Seoul.

People’s motivations to submit articles for

publication on the website varied greatly even

amongst the USA-based reporters. There were writ-

ers who hoped to be able to contribute to building a

better society by creating media. It was the negative

perception of the state of the traditional mainstream

media that motivated some reporters to do what

they could to improve the situation. As Ronda

Hauben, one of the reporters, explained “I thought

there’s a need to sort out what, how there can be a

better press and that’s some of what I feel I’m try-

ing to do in terms of the writing and the work I do

as part of citizen journalism.” The freedom to write

on themes that were perceived not to be accepted by

the traditional mainstream media and having an out-

let for them in OMNI was of importance to some of

the interviewed reporters. It was therefore consid-

ered that writing for media like OMNI granted more

flexibility in choosing a topic and how to approach

it than is possible in the mainstream media.

A few of the interviewed reporters indicated

that, on one hand, they wanted to provide informa-

tion in the USA and to the rest of the world about

the democratic spirit of American people, and, on

the other, about the reality of American society. As

one reporter, Cody Lyon , noted in relation to why

he contributed to OMNI “…maybe to give a little of

my thoughts, my feelings and like, you know, to

open up a window into something that may not be

provided of the American dream in the media … I

think that it’s an important role. I don’t take it

lightly.”

There were also reporters for whom writing

was mainly a leisure-time pursuit that they found

personally rewarding. Dona Gibbs , one of the inter-

viewees, explained what motivated her to contribute

to OMNI as a reporter “My impetus to do this is that

I really have written all my literate life, and it is a

wonderful outlet. I also find that I enjoy events

Page 20

more if I feel that I am also there to be eyes and

ears for others. I am a writer, and I have to write.”

A few reporters’ motivation involved either

an aim to pursue a career in journalism or a goal to

develop sufficiently in order to have work pub-

lished elsewhere. One such writer, Shannon

McCann, noted “I love to get some feedback, be-

cause that’s the whole point. It’s to improve… I’m

looking more, actually, for people who don’t enjoy

it versus the ones who do, because I’m looking to

improve my skills, expanding the audience, because

again, this is all just to work toward a book.” Re-

gardless of reporters’ aims, or what motivated them

to submit articles to OMNI, the website seemed to

be able to accommodate their contributions.

Although OMNI did not have reporters who

could be assigned to write an article on a specific

topic, editors informed people who contributed to

OMNI of what was happening in their localities in

the hope that they might want to take it up. Review-

ing other media for interesting news stories in

places where OMNI had contributors and prompting

reporters to write about them was an integral part of

the editors’ work. As occasionally OMNI would be

offered several very similar articles on the same

topic, the editors could also suggest that reporters

from the same area organise the coverage amongst

themselves. For OMNI, such coordination increased

the probability of receiving coverage of a broader

range of topics, whereas the benefits for reporters

included the reduced possibility of an article being

rejected because similar pieces had been offered for

publication.

Payment for articles published in the edited

main sections of the website, which is how OMNI

used to reward reporters before switching to award-

ing the best articles monthly, seemed to be one of

the reasons why very similar articles were some-

times offered for publication. Discussions with edi-

tors revealed that payments encouraged some re-

porters, from countries where the fee of $10-20 is a

significant amount of money, to submit articles that

were not always original, but were rehashed from

other sources, or that were not of adequate quality

in terms of, for example, spelling and structure. At

the time of the interview, former Assistant Editor

Claire George explained that this led to a situation

where the website “was kind of like battling against

plagiarism and people just trying to milk the

website for money.”

Despite the attempts to overcome the lack of

a steady flow of articles on a range of current topics

from around the globe, the content of the OMNI

website tended to offer a collection of articles that

did not necessarily reflect what was happening in

the world or even in those places where OMNI had

reporters. Mainly for this reason, the website ap-

peared refreshingly different from much of the

news media that often seems rather uniform in their

selection of content and focus. It was not rare to see

articles written by people who were living in places

that did not attract much attention in most of the

media, articles that had been written from a fresh

point of view, and articles that covered issues that

had not been of much interest to the other media.

What is more, because OMNI did not pose

restrictions on whose contributions would be pub-

lished on the website based on, for example, peo-

ple’s cultural or racial identity, political leaning,

social class or religious beliefs, occasionally one

could come across articles that offered different,

sometimes heavily contrasting points of view on the

same topic. Editors typically labelled these articles

as “opinion” to separate them from more factual

news content. Those who were posting on the

website had to accept that their views may be posi-

tioned next to those of someone who could portray

a very different opinion. In this sense OMNI dif-

fered from much of the so-called alternative media

where restrictions on who can contribute are not

uncommon and that have a tendency to interest like-

minded people as their readers.

In comparison with some other participatory

media such as the websites of the Indymedia net-

work, OMNI had a more traditional organisational

structure in which reporters had a fixed role beyond

which they were not expected to become involved.

Thus, the registered reporters offered content for

publication on the website and the editors decided

what was published. In its editing process, OMNI

drew on practices that are common for many news

organisations; the editors moderated all content on

the OMNI website and articles that were published

in the main sections of the website were edited. Ed-

iting involved both checking that the facts in an ar-

ticle were correct and fine-tuning the text. Other

typical tasks performed by editors included prepar-

ing reporters’ pictures for publication and changing

headlines and captions. One part of the editing pro-

cess was ensuring that articles were not rehashed

Page 21

from other sources; such contributions were re-

jected, as were articles that did not meet the re-

quired level of quality.

In 2007, the then Senior Editor of OMNI,

Todd Thacker , estimated that 80% of the contribu-

tors were non-native English speakers. For editors

of OMNI, the majority of the stories being submit-

ted by contributors whose first language is not Eng-

lish meant that correcting articles for spelling,

grammar and punctuation was a central part of their

work. Because of the physical distance between the

reporters and OMNI’s editors, by and large, editors

provided advice for reporters through email and

online instant messaging, but sometimes also

through voice services available online such as

Skype.

At the time of the interview, the Director of

the International Division, Jean K. Min , who had

been working for OMNI since its launch, com-

mented on the role of the organisation in training

reporters “We want to give them [OMNI reporters]

some minimal, at least a minimal level of writing

and communication skills so that their stories can be

more effectively communicated to our readers.” He

did, however, also emphasise that the key to becom-

ing a skilled reporter was learning by example and

learning through doing. The possibility that report-

ers can learn by practising and by observing their

fellow reporters is an important point, but it should

not be taken to undermine the value of offering ap-

propriate support for those who require it. As Claire

George pointed out “… they [OMNI reporters] do

need to know how to express themselves. Or they

need an editor who can help them.”

The interviewed reporters valued having

access to editors who prepared articles for publica-

tion and checked that the facts were correct. The

credibility of the OMNI website was seen to rest on

it being edited and the fact that the reporters for the

main sections of the website were required to regis-

ter and to publish under their real name. However,

some reporters felt that editors could have been

even more firm when it came to, for example, de-

ciding what could be considered to be a purely fac-

tual news article and what should be labeled as

opinion, as well as to what extent articles should be

edited to enhance their quality.

In not allowing people to post anonymously,

OMNI seemed to draw on the school of thought that

asserts that reporters are more likely to stand behind

their writing and less likely to spread unconfirmed

information or lies if they are required to use their

own name. On very few occasions, however, editors

did allow reporters to use an anonymous by-line to

protect them from persecution. Typically, this was

in cases where revealing certain information could

have compromised the safety of a reporter, for ex-

ample, because of the restrictions on women’s free-

dom of speech in some countries. According to

Todd Thacker, in addition to the necessity of a good

reason why a reporter needed anonymity, editors

had to have known the reporter well so that they

could make an informed decision about the integrity

of an article.

Claire George argued that the consequences

of requiring reporters to register and to write under

their real name are not entirely positive. According

to her “I just think the fact that we would only take

stories from people with their real names, I think

that really limited us. Because I think, I don’t know

whether this is a gender thing, but I think some peo-

ple, maybe women, are not going to really feel con-

fident.” Claire George based her view on her own

experiences as a reporter for participatory media

websites, as well as on her observation that OMNI

was “really lacking female writers”. The perceived

shortage of female contributors possibly had to do

with the abusive comments they would, according

to Claire George, sometimes receive on the articles.

Thus, it seems that, at least occasionally, the system

failed to prevent offensive comments from appear-

ing on the website. This is despite the fact that

OMNI endeavoured to keep the comments section

clear of abusive content, as editors moderated com-

ments on articles, and people were prompted on the

website not to post personal attacks.

Despite the website having the potential to

facilitate the formation of networks and discussions

following the articles, in the interviews with USA-

based reporters of OMNI only a modest amount of

evidence emerged to support the realisation of this

potential. The website covered a wide range of top-

ics submitted from many parts of the world, yet the

categorisation of the articles was fairly crude, which

might have in part contributed to why people rarely

seemed to use the opportunities to debate the topics

covered in the articles. It also seems that unlike, for

example, the OMN website which brings people

together to debate the issues in South Korean soci-

Page 22

ety, an international audience is fragmented and it

does not necessarily share the same interests.

Those reporters who were invited to the Cit-

izen Reporters’ Forum in Seoul recounted that the

event provided valuable opportunities to network

and to share their experiences with other reporters

from around the world, including reporters from the

South Korean edition. Based on my observations

from attending the forum in 2007, in addition to

meeting one another, reporters heard about and

were able to debate participatory journalism, as the

programme consisted of presentations by reporters

themselves, as well as experts and facilitators of

other participatory journalism platforms.

It was clear from the interviews with report-

ers that they appreciated having an outlet for their

contributions in the form of OMNI. However, dis-

cussions with some of the reporters also revealed

unfamiliarity with OMNI’s business model and with

the ownership of the company. Moreover, some of

the ways in which OMNI functioned were not clear

to all reporters. For example, many did not know

that OMNI rewarded reporters by inviting some of

them to an expenses-paid trip to visit the Citizen

Reporters’ Forum, let alone on what bases the deci-

sions regarded who were asked to attend were

made. Relatively little also seemed to be known

about the selection of featured writers and that

OMNI had granted a few trusted reporters business

cards, whilst strictly prohibiting reporters from

making their own OMNI cards. It seems that OMNI

would have benefitted from greater transparency

regarding these practices.

As part of the same business, the interna-

tional edition was dependent on the South Korean

OMN for resources such as funds to pay staff and

reporters, equipment and office space. Although

OMNI was launched as a showcase, the other two

OhmyNews websites in South Korea and in Japan

were the main priorities for the company, or “the

real operation”, as Jean K. Min called the latter two

websites. He stressed that rather than focusing on a

global audience, which he saw as a “fuzzy con-

cept”, the company was keen to launch countrywide

websites that would serve a local news audience in

their own language. The consequence of this ap-

proach was, in the words of Todd Thacker , that

“OhmyNews International always takes the back

seat to anything the main site [OMN] is doing.”

Despite the reported difficulties in keeping

the company profitable in recent years, OMN re-

tained the international edition until 2010. The signs

of the financial struggle had been apparent for quite

some time as, prior to the closure of the OMNI

website, it had ceased to employ editors. In an at-

tempt to compensate for the situation, OMNI had

recruited unpaid volunteers from amongst the re-

porters to help with editing. Before closing down

the website and launching a blog that focuses on

discussing citizen journalism in summer 2010, the

company had also stopped paying reporters for arti-

cles published on the website. Another change that

had taken place since the launch of the international

edition was that OMNI, like the other two editions,

had begun to place advertising on the website. It is

obvious from these changes that OMNI was experi-

encing serious financial problems.

It seems justified to argue that the lack of

commitment to develop the international edition

hindered OMNI. Nor was a long-term sustainable

way to fund the international edition discovered.

Undoubtedly OMNI was important for many of its

reporters who might have hoped for its

revitalisation and were disappointed to see the

website closed down. Despite OMNI attracting

many devoted reporters, some of whom might have

been willing to take a more active role in the

organisation, and skilled editors who believed in

OMNI, its potential as a global news website was

never fully explored. The hope is that another inter-

national participatory news organisation will seek to

build on OMNI’s strengths and to learn from its

weaknesses in a quest to fill the gap in the online

news media left by its closure.

* In 2010, Ulla Rannikko was awarded a PhD by the London

School of Economics and Political Science. Her thesis title is

“Going beyond the mainstream? Online participatory journal-

ism as a mode of civic engagement”.

** Mr. Oh’s concept has been stated or translated in two

different ways: “every citizen is a reporter” versus “every citi-

zen can be a reporter”. See for example,

http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?n

o=169396&rel_no=1 and

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2003/05/58856

Page 23

Comments on the

Closing of OMNI

I was sad to hear about the developments at

OhmyNews - it was and remains a unique experiment.

David McNeill (Tokyo, Japan)

It was truly sad that OMNI had to close; I do

believe that it served a very important mission at an im-

portant juncture, and also inspired many writers and on-

line developers…. I will not be able to contribute to the

special edition; I truly regret that, especially as I think it

is very important to reflect on the OMNI experience.

Ramzy Baroud (Seattle, Washington)

OMNI did seem unique in many respects. It gave

voice to many citizen reporters from various countries

who hoped to make a positive difference.

Unlike many of the blogs that I see, it seemed

less atomized and more inclusive of divergent opinions.

Many of the stories that were told were important and

generally well researched. Hopefully something will re-

place it.

Joe Spielman (New York City)

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.

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 and

available via e-mail. To obtain a free e-mail copy of any

issue, send a request to:

[email protected]

Back issues of the Amateur Computerist are available on

the World Wide Web:

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

Page 24