The Amateur

Computerist

Winter 2011 OhmyNews International 2004-2011 Volume 2 No. 2

Table of Contents

OMNI Pioneer of Transnational Journalism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page 1

Background: OhmyNews Korea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 5

Closure is Sad Event.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 13

From the Frontline.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 14

Long-Lasting Impacts .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 16

Unfinished Journey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 18

Reporting from the United Nations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 20

Thanks for the Memory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 29

Participatory Journalism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 30

Focus Was Too Broad?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 35

OMNI’s Legacy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 36

Every Citizen Is a Reporter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 39

Comments on the Closing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 47

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 newsletter is a special issue

focusing on the experience and implications of the six years of

OhmyNews International.

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

Page 1

During most of these six years OhmyNews International was under

the editorship of Todd Thacker who provided a helpful and supportive

environment to contributors. A number of these contributors, especially

in the early years were journalists or other specialists in various subjects

from countries around the world.

There were articles for example by Wooksik Cheong on inter-

Korean relations, Ramzy Baroud on Palestinian issues, John Horvath on

Eastern European developments, Alex Krabbe on E.U. and German

events, Tim Savage on nuclear developments, Chris Gelken on events

in Iran, the Middle East, and on China, and Ronda Hauben on the social

impact of the Net and netizens and on UN related issues. These are but

some examples of articles that continued over a period of time in

OhmyNews International.

Along with articles by a set of featured writers, there were contribu-

tions from journalists or volunteer reporters (called citizen reporters or

news guerrillas) 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 journalists 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 Interna-

tional played pioneering roles in the development of online journalism.

In the summer of 2008, the fourth forum featured journalists who had

covered and documented the 106 day candlelight demonstration in Seoul

that spring.

Going to the first OhmyNews International Citizen 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 journalists around the world, often journalists

for whom English was a second language or a language they wanted to

learn. The content of OhmyNews International was able to reflect a

Page 2

transnational perspective rather than a narrow national viewpoint which

is characteristic of many other news publications.

Some remarkable coverage found its way into OhmyNews Interna-

tional. 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 assumed direct power and de-

clared a nation-wide state of emergency in 2005, and of the struggle

against the removal of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad 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 Interna-

tional 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

cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in disrespectful 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 “Background: OhmyNews

Korea,” this issue p. 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 contribu-

tions by OhmyNews International is that we see the importance of

defending a broad concept of ‘citizenship.’ That concept has its roots in

the social and civic participatory activism as practiced by the citizens

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 journal-

Page 3

ism” a broad conception of “citizen” needed to be established as the

basis for this form of journalism. Mr. Oh referred to this broad concep-

tion 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, citizen 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 published 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 constitute 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 partici-

pants.

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 submitted by citizen reporters and

edited by experienced journalists. It set out to be a significant progres-

sive 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 article by

Ulla Rannikko who shares some of her observations from her experience

of doing a Ph.D. thesis, in part about OhmyNews International.

Page 4

Ramzy Baroud wrote to us: “It was truly sad that OMNI had to

close; I do believe that it served a very important mission at an impor-

tant juncture, and also inspired many writers and online developers….

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 Grassroots 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_draft.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

magazine owned by the Citizen’s Coalition for Democratic Media. Oh

worked for Mal as a journalist for the decade following 1988. In July

1994, he published 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 mainstream Korean news media from the

Page 5

Korean Broadcasting 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 government take it up, but the AP reporters won a Pulitzer

Prize for their article. While the AP story included 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 publication, 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 standards for what was considered news, news

gathering and news distribution. With the creation of OhmyNews, Oh

was determined to make fundamental changes in the process of news

gathering, production and distribution.

One basic change that OhmyNews instituted was to welcome

netizens to become journalists. Describing 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.

Privileged reporters who come together to form massive news

media wielded power over the whole process of news produc-

tion, distribution and consumption.

Readers of OhmyNews could submit stories which would be

considered by the editors for publication. Articles which were accepted

were fact-checked, edited and then published. Those who contributed

articles were called citizen journalists or citizen reporters. The citizen

reporters whose articles 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

Page 6

together.’ The concept of ‘news’ was transformed by OhmyNews.

Articles could include opinions as long as the facts were accurate.

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 possible 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 focus 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-governmental 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 explained 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 production, 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 standard-

ized 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 transformation of work

methods, will be to ‘fire arrows toward specific targets: attack corrupted

and privileged 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 reporters.’

The philosophy proposed is labeled ‘open progressive.’ This means that

‘We are to pursue open progressive perspectives, criticizing unproduc-

tive and stubborn progressives and supporting productive and conscien-

tious conservatives.’ While the group PSPD (Peoples Solidarity for

Participatory Democracy) worked to build solidarity among civic

activists as an NGO, OhmyNews also sought to create an ‘NGO’– News

Guerrillas Organization – for solidarity among ‘news guerrillas.’ Oh

explains this term as follows: “The dictionary definition of guerrilla is

Page 7

‘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 establish-

ment.”

The goal in the business plan is to replace the 8:2 ratio between

conservative media and progressive 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, however, most Koreans were focused on the World Cup celebra-

tions taking place in South Korea. By November 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 Republic 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 television. A few hours after watching the documen-

tary, 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, because until now I didn’t

understand those who struggle so strongly.

It is said that dead men’s souls become fireflies. 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 wearing black, let’s have a memorial

ceremony for them.

Let’s walk in Gwanghwamun holding a lighted candle. Let’s commemo-

Page 8

rate the lives of Mi-seon and Hyo-soon, who were forgotten in the joy

of June. Will the police prevent 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 future

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 after 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 discussion and debate. By 14

December more than 100,000 people gathered in Gwanghwamun.

Roh Moo-Hyun’s Election Campaign

The candlelight demonstrations of 2002 occurred during a period

leading up to the presidential election campaign held that year. Develop-

ments in the election campaign were another part of the power struggle

between the conservative print media 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

discussion groups, online polemics, and online journalism. 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 February 2002 showed Roh ahead

of Lee. The significant aspect of the election campaign for Roh was the

Page 9

fact that his candidacy was strongly opposed by the conservative print

press. For example, during the primary election, the ‘major newspapers

almost everyday carried articles that both implicitly and explicitly

criticized candidate Roh Moo-hyun.’ Surprisingly, the attacks by the

print media served to increase the public’s interest in Roh and his

campaign. 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 regarded 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 newspa-

pers 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 genera-

tions who had previously found politics uninteresting. A feedback loop

developed between the articles published in the conservative major print

publications and the comments and discussion 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…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 causality without further study,

Yun Young-min proposes that the ‘so-called experts’ should exert

caution when making their predictions about ‘such events in the future.’

Page 10

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 important 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 scheduled 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 phenome-

non for two years. Oh wondered if it would be possible for netizens to

succeed in their campaign for Roh given the opposition of the conserva-

tive 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

voters to follow Chung’s lead and withdraw their support from Roh.

OhmyNews continually updated its coverage. Oh reports that the

discussion boards on OhmyNews were flooded with comments. The

article in OhmyNews about Chung’s withdrawal of support received

570,000 hits in the ten hours following 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

Page 11

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

reporters. According to Oh,

OhmyNews did our job as the media by giving 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 coverage we were

able to decide just how newsworthy 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 newspa-

per 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.”

In 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

advertising dependent to a subscriber model for funding its operations.

On August 31, it ended support for new submissions to OhmyNews

International.

Notes

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.

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

Seoul: Humanist, pp. 327-353, Translation from Korean into English by Lee Jin-sun.

Page 12

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.

5. Sisa Journal, October 21, 2003.

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 believe me when I say that

I got a wrench in my heart when I opened the mail from OhmyNews

International (OMNI) and learned about the decision of the promoters

to close the site. That the site that inspired 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 difficulties 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 editorial 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 going. That they would decide to close it never

Page 13

occurred 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.asp?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 formative time in my career. I must admit

that after OMNI shut its doors as a full-fledged (professionally edited)

citizen journalism site this year, I moved on. A new family and job as

managing editor 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

international 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

Page 14

developed from the Korean system. The back-end interface where all the

editing was done was in Korean.

Since we were OhmyNews International, we put a lot effort into

keeping the operation as close to 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

efficient that I brought that system with me as managing 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 appreciate 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 (admittedly, 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 prof-

itable 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 International 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 experts. Personally, though, working with smart

people 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

Page 15

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 competition 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

successful business. But as it stands, our personal and professional

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 Virginia 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 attended such a large conference with amazing people.

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.

Page 16

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 network of

contacts as well as to seek chances to further my studies.

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 acquired 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 published and wonder-

ing 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

culturally 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

interactive function of OhmyNews as readers could comment on each of

my pieces and even wrote directly to me through e-mail. 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 managing 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 subsequently 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 forever.

Page 17

OMNI Citizen Journalism:

A Good Start to an Unfinished Journey

by Michael Werbowski

werbowskimichael@yahoo.co.uk

My journey as an OMNI citizen reporter began 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 reporting 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 contextualize

news events. This experimental forum enabled me to “push the enve-

lope” in new directions. 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” reports 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 organized opposition

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 commented 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 unabashedly opinionated, and

I became a regular commentator on international issues and events. I

Page 18

tried not to let factual clarity be distorted by my perhaps biased views.

There were many pieces which were written not so much with objectiv-

ity in mind, but more of a sense of duty to raise awareness on a topic left

out of the mainstream media. Deaths related to police incidents

involving individuals restrained 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 examined the state of an international

organization, or country which was in the news at the time. Again, being

with OMNI at the time gave me great flexibility and freedom to analyze,

delve into, and hopefully spur discussion on the topics I raised in my

writings.

One of the more memorable OMNI reporting experiences was

during the 2007, Turkish legislative elections. Just after returning from

the OMNI Citizens’ Forum meeting in Seoul, I came to Istanbul, 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 realized it was possible to compete with the

“big guys” in the business with very limited resources.

There are of course drawbacks to citizen journalism such as OMNI.

Working without a deadline can be tedious, as you have to constantly

motivate 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

network 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 perhaps

make a difference in the world. In this sense my days at OMNI were a

rewarding part of my life.

Dec, 2010, Vienna Austria

Page 19

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 Korea. 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 relevant 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 campaign for the nomination to run for U.S. President on the

Democratic Party ticket had similar characteristics. 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

When the editorial staff was increased, it also became possible to

become a featured writer. I became the first female featured writer for

the English 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 contenders to become the 8

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

Page 20

to get based on my writing for Telepolis, and the experience proved very

interesting. This event was the World Summit on Information Society

(WSIS) which took place in Tunis, Tunisia 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 activities 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 October 13.

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

procedures 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 witnessing 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 Korean 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.

Page 21

I wrote an article about the election of Ban Ki-moon as the 8

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 Secretary General. He came down to the staff

cafeteria to eat his lunch, with his communications staff person. 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 cafeteria 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, explaining 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 translated into Korean, and published in both the Korean

and English editions of OhmyNews.

In general I paid attention to Security Council 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

Page 22

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 Korea 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 politically motivated.

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 international banking system would be

restored to North Korea. In exchange North Korea would return to the

6 party talks. The Berlin meeting broke the deadlock 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 bilateral 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 deadlocked

the 6 party talks, even as the delegates arrived for the talks in Beijing.

The deadlock continued 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 Korean 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

Page 23

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 finding 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. Treasury 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 docu-

ments 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 discussing the function of the bank in helping

North Korea sell its gold. Other banks in Macau, the article indicated,

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.

Treasury 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 referred to legal documents

filed by the owner of the BDA. I tried to find a way to get a copy of the

documents. 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. government 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 Department 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.

Page 24

In May 2007 Chris Hill gave a short talk at a dinner celebrating the

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 covering 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.

I again found a helpful article in the McClatchy newspapers which

referred to a blog which was providing background on the issues

involved 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 challeng-

ing 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 documents in the BDA the

story. The U.S. government’s findings were general statements

providing no specific evidence of wrong doing on the part of the bank.

The bank’s explanation refuted the Treasury Department’s charges of

illegal activity. The refutation also helped to demonstrate the political

motivation 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 government document

explained, quoting an old Chinese 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 software 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

Page 25

U.S. government for negotiating to return the $25 million to North

Korea.

In late May I was an invited speaker at the International Communi-

cations Association (ICA 2007) conference in San Francisco. I summed

up my experience writing for OhmyNews International, 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

episode 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 surprising e-mail in my

mailbox. The e-mail 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 service.

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 e-mail continued:

While I was working on a story about BDA issue, I read your

report, ‘Behind the Blacklisting 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

Page 26

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 e-mail 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.

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 e-mail elaborating.

Her e-mail explained:

The questions I am planning to ask you during 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

listeners.

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 9 a.m. and 9:30 a.m.…. Thanks again,

Page 27

she wrote ending the e-mail.

She called at the arranged time. We had a half hour telephone

conversation discussing my stories, the sources I had used and the

problem represented 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 several 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 Reserve Bank of New York

had agreed to transfer the funds from the BDA to an account held by a

Russian 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 going 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 surrounding 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.

Page 28

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 retained the sense of

creativity combined with captiousness 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.

Getting assignments, mostly from Eugene, I never knew what would

be coming next – first-hand reports of the Nepalese civil war from native

speakers that had the feel of being machine translations, as did many

submissions from CJs in developing countries; summary reports of

cricket matches, usually 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 stories? I know this sounds a bit like professionalese, but it can

only help our credibility.

b) Can CJs focus on investigative journalism? 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 common 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 newspapers has yet to

take off. 1) We have to define CJ more precisely and not just as the

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

journalism has been: would we willingly drive a car designed by a

‘citizen’ engineer or appear before a ‘citizen’ judge? These nonsensical

slurs are directed toward straw men of the critics’ imagination. 2) Could

Page 29

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 &

donations? 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

amateurs without necessarily producing ‘amateurish’ work.

d) Are professional journalists necessarily ‘expert’?

e) Would it be doable to embed CJs in addition 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 suffered as a result of the

financial crisis of 2008, albeit 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. Indubitably, 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 revolution” of the late 1990s. This is a

common mistake, foremost because the rapid expansion of information

and communications technology (ICT) indubitably aided in the rapid

expansion of citizen journalism both in terms of consumption and

production. 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

Page 30

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 Millennium in conjunction with the

advancement of ICT as newer forms of expression began to clog the so-

called “information superhighway,” participatory journalism increas-

ingly came to represent what citizen journalism had initially stood for.

The main difference between the two is that ICT is an integral compo-

nent 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.

This South Korean online publication was unique in many respects.

First and foremost it provided 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 journalistic 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 accessi-

ble “from the street.” To become a member of the OMNI community

was simple and straightforward: a plain registration process and account-

like structure enabled anyone to become a writer for the Korean-based

publication, rendering the concept of journalism as truly participatory.

In conjunction with this the editorial process (something which

markedly differentiates participatory journalism from other forms of

online expression such as blogs) conveniently operated in the back-

ground. As a result, writers for OMNI weren’t bothered by the pressures

and constraints of the profession, something which invariably affects the

work of conventional journalists.

What helped to make OMNI truly participatory was the fact that

writers were offered more avenues for exposure and feedback. As a

result, the payment for published articles was not a major factor. 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

Page 31

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 readers 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 increas-

ingly missing from the spotlight and applause associated with main-

stream, professional journalism. It goes without saying that the discourse

generated as a result 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 impor-

tant. These writers were foremost from developing countries. 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 conceptual frame-

work 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 widespread, but the concept was unable to

Page 32

properly develop 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 Jeffersonian nature. The Jefferson ideal of the

“gentleman farmer” is very much applicable in this case. This ideal is

centered on the notion that individual self-interest can be tempered

through self-sufficiency. 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.

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 enormous pressure. In

place of self-sufficiency as a regulator 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, intellectual, 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 profes-

sional 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 financial 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 response to an ever-changing media landscape. In the

Page 33

case of OMNI, while the attempt to build a truly participatory form of

journalism eventually ended in failure, it nevertheless provided a unique

example of how such a model can function. At the technical and

operative levels OMNI seemed to fulfill the requirements of what would

be expected of an organization committed to the notion of participatory

journalism. The editorial level, meanwhile, was perhaps in need of a

little more refinement as it wasn’t always clear to writers why some

articles appeared 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 participatory 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 remuneration. 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 paper citizen journalism and the enhanced form of such

journalism made possible by the internet. The latter he calls ‘participatory journalism’.

Page 34

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 spoken of as the antidote to the world’s ills.

This attitude 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.

In my work behind the scenes at OMNI, I was excited but also

disappointed. We had no control 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.

Page 35

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 journalism.

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 commercially 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 deserve 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 because they do what I

cannot. I wonder if that’s why reporters in the mainstream press seem to

have difficulty 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

Page 36

of Madhya Pradesh, mostly unknown to the world, barring, perhaps, for

the wrong reason of being the site of the world’s worst industrial disaster

in 1984.

Notwithstanding the place’s rather uncomfortable 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 local 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 independent-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 adminis-

tration 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, indeed, 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 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, outpourings.

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 response 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.

Page 37

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, technology, 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 journalist sites in India and abroad. I have been

contributing to quite a few of them located in India, the U.S. 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, therefore, 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 developments 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 integrity – lobbying for a particular

Page 38

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, unwit-

tingly 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 honest 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 informa-

tion. Surely, the trend set off by Mr. Oh Yeon-ho will be carried

forward.

Showcasing the Concept “Every

Citizen Is a Reporter” to the World

by Ulla Rannikko*

This article discusses the strengths and limitations 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 research 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 international in scope.

OMNI was launched in 2004 to showcase the concept of OhmyNews

– every citizen is a reporter** – 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

successfully for Korean-speaking readers and contributors, whether in

Page 39

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

articles and to encourage the formation of networks among reporters and

between them and their readers, as it was possible to send messages

directly to the reporters via the website.

It appears that the momentum that led to conceiving the interna-

tional 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 producing

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 geographic reach. For the same reason

OMNI was unable 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 writers 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 trying 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 outlet for them in OMNI

was of importance to some of the interviewed reporters. It was therefore

considered that writing for media like OMNI granted more flexibility in

Page 40

choosing a topic and how to approach it than is possible in the main-

stream media.

A few of the interviewed reporters indicated that, on one hand, they

wanted to provide information 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 interviewees, 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

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 published elsewhere. One such writer, Shannon McCann, noted “I

love to get some feedback, because 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.” Regardless 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. Reviewing 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.

Page 41

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 awarding the best articles monthly, seemed to be one of the reasons

why very similar articles were sometimes offered for publication.

Discussions with editors revealed that payments encouraged some

reporters, 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

appeared 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 published on the website based on, for example,

people’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 positioned next to

those of someone who could portray a very different opinion. In this

Page 42

sense OMNI differed 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 network, 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. Editing

involved both checking that the facts in an article were correct and fine-

tuning the text. Other typical tasks performed by editors included

preparing reporters’ pictures for publication and changing headlines and

captions. One part of the editing process was ensuring that articles were

not rehashed from other sources; such contributions were rejected, as

were articles that did not meet the required level of quality.

In 2007, the then Senior Editor of OMNI, Todd Thacker, estimated

that 80% of the contributors were non-native English speakers. For

editors of OMNI, the majority of the stories being submitted by

contributors whose first language is not English 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, commented 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 becoming a skilled reporter was learning

by example and learning through doing. The possibility that reporters

can learn by practising and by observing their fellow reporters is an

Page 43

important point, but it should not be taken to undermine the value of

offering appropriate 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 publication 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 register 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, deciding what could be considered to be a purely factual

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 anony-

mous 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 example, because of the restrictions on women’s

freedom 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

people, maybe women, are not going to really feel confident.” 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

Page 44

seems that, at least occasionally, the system failed to prevent offensive

comments from appearing on the website. This is despite the fact that

OMNI endeavoured to keep the comments section clear of abusive

content, as editors moderated comments 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 topics 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 society, an international audience is fragmented

and it does not necessarily share the same interests.

Those reporters who were invited to the Citizen 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 reporters that they appreciated

having an outlet for their contributions in the form of OMNI. However,

discussions 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 decisions 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

Page 45

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 international edition was depend-

ent 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 concept,” the company was keen to launch countrywide

websites that would serve a local news audience in their own language.

The consequence of this approach 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 retained 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 attempt to compensate for the situation, OMNI had

recruited unpaid volunteers from amongst the reporters 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 articles 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 experiencing 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 sustain-

able 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

Page 46

website was never fully explored. The hope is that another international

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 Ph.D. by the London School of Economics

and Political Science. Her thesis title is “Going beyond the mainstream? Online

participatory journalism 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 citizen can be a reporter.” See for example,

http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?no=169396&rel_no=1 and

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

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 important juncture, and also inspired

many writers and online 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

Page 47

replace 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. Back issues of the Amateur Computerist are available at:

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

All issues can be accessed from the Index at:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/NewIndex.pdf

Page 48