The Amateur

Computerist

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

Summer 2021 Toward a Second Netizen Book (Part 4a) Volume 34 No. 4a

Table of Contents

Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page 1

Interview with Ronda and Jay Hauben . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2

Netizen Pressure for a New Journalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 15

Netizens and the Republic of Tahrir Square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 39

Netizens in Media War at the United Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 44

Significance of the Net and the Netizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 77

Forward

This issue of the Amateur Computerist, Vol. 34 No. 4a, is the fourth

issue in a series, each containing chapters that are the basis for a second

netizen book. The chapters in this issue provide analysis and examples of

an emerging new journalism. Michael Hauben wrote that the net “brings

the power of the reporter to the Netizen.”

The first article is an interview that asks the question, what is new

about this emerging journalism. It offers several examples of characteris-

tics that distinguish netizen journalism from other journalism forms. The

second article, “Netizen Reporting and Media Criticism Pressure for a

New Journalism” argues that netizen activity in China has served as a

pressure for a reexamination and recasting of journalist practice. The next

article, “Netizens in Egypt and the Republic of Tahrir Square” describes

how bloggers reported on the 2011 protests and discussed them online.

Page 1

Their journalism became a significant part of the protest activities.

The article, “The Role of Netizen Journalism in the Media War at the

United Nations” shows that journalists with a social purpose and with

blogs and other online forms, can on occasion influence even the UN. The

article documents there are netizens who are dedicated to doing the

research and analysis to determine the interests and actions that are too

often hidden from public view making it possible to have a more accurate

grasp of whose interests are being served and what is at stake in the events

that make up the news.

The last article, ties this new journalism with the emergence of new

developments, of a new politics, of a new form of citizenship, and of what

Michael Hauben called the “poor man’s version of the mass media.” It

cites the work of Mark Poster, who wonders if the role of citizen is being

replaced with the role of netizen as globalization drives society to new

forms of democracy.

[Editor’s Note: In September 2007, Ronda and Jay Hauben were in

Germany for a conference celebrating German-Chinese networking

collaboration. On the sideline to that conference, journalist and journalism

professor Gabriele Hooffacker interviewed them on September 23, 2007.

Dr Hooffacker published the interview in a book with the German title

Wem gehört das Internet? (Verlag Dr. Gabriele Hooffacker, Munchen,

2008). The following is the original English interview, edited by the

Haubens in December 2007.]

Interview with Ronda

and Jay Hauben

Dr. Gabriele Hooffacker: Would you say that netizen journalism is the

same as grassroots journalism?

Ronda Hauben: They are not quite the same. Netizen journalism

includes grassroots journalism, but the significance I understand is that a

netizen has a social perspective and does something from that perspective.

Page 2

Some of the origin of the term netizen was when Michael Hauben, then a

college student, did some research in 1992-1993. He sent out a number of

questions on Usenet which was at the time and still is an online forum for

discussion. Usenet was very active in the early 90s. He also sent his

questions out on Internet mailing lists.

In the responses to his questions people said that they were interested

in the Internet for the different things they were trying to do but they also

wanted to figure out how to spread the Internet, to help it to grow and

thrive and to help everybody have access. What Michael found was that

there was a social purpose that people explained to him. People had

developed this social sense from the fact that they could participate online

and find some very interesting valuable possibilities online. Many of the

people that responded to his questions shared with him that they wanted

to contribute to the Internet so that it would grow and thrive.

In my opinion this set of characteristics is broader than grassroots

journalism. Grassroots journalism I would interpret as people from the

grassroots having the ability to post. But where there is also a social desire

and purpose, that is what I would define as netizen journalism.

Dr. Gabriele Hooffacker: You also said political participation?

Ronda Hauben: Yes a political and a social purpose. By social I mean

that people support something happening for other people, that the net be

shared and be available to a broader set of people. This includes a political

focus as well.

Dr. Gabriele Hooffacker: I just remember one of my first keynote

speeches. I had to speak about empowering the information poor in 1994.

It was a meeting of pedagogic teachers and I told them that they should try

to make it possible for many people of all classes to have access to the

Internet. That I think is some of the sense of being a netizen.

Ronda Hauben: That is being a netizen.

Dr. Gabriele Hooffacker: I’m afraid many people think participation

only means economical and not political and that especially people in

Eastern Europe mainly wanted to take part economically.

Ronda Hauben: In the U.S. for example, there has been a lot of pressure

supported by the U.S. government for seeing the Internet as a way to

enrich yourself. But that is not what grew up with the Internet community.

The pressure for the Internet to be for economic purposes was in opposi-

Page 3

tion to the netizen developments in the U.S.

Jay Hauben: At one point it became clear that there was beginning to be

the Internet for economic purposes in contradiction to the original Internet.

That is when Ronda and Michael received a lot of help toward having

appear a print edition of their book, Netizens*. People said, we must

defend the Internet from this new pressure, which is coming as an

economic pressure. That was a great impetus and support for publishing

the book.

Dr. Gabriele Hooffacker: We just talked about the Chinese bloggers

and you told me that they call themselves netizens.

Ronda Hauben: I asked a Chinese blogger, Zola Zhou, who I had

written to if he thought of himself as a netizen. He said yes he did. Also,

I have seen articles about the Internet in China that actually say that the

netizens are a small set of the Chinese online population but are those who

have political purpose and activities. That is in line with research that

Michael originally did in the 1990s with regard to the Internet and which

helped his coming to understand that such people online around the world

were netizens.

Dr. Gabriele Hooffacker: You told me that there is a great blogger

community without censorship and also political?

Ronda Hauben: No, there is censorship in China. But there is a big

blogger community and something that I found in one of the articles that

I read I thought was very hopeful. It quoted a Chinese Internet user who

said that focusing too closely on Internet censorship overlooks the

expanded freedoms of expression made possible in China by the Internet.

I thought that seemed correct. All I ever hear from the U.S. press is that in

China the Internet is censored. Such framing of the Internet in China leads

away from trying to look and understand what is happening in China with

the Internet. It turns out that there is something very significant developing

and that has already developed, which involves a lot of people who are

being very active trying to discuss the problems of China and trying to see

if they can be part of helping to solve those problems. That is the opposite

of the sense you get from the news media that talks about censorship all

the time.

Jay Hauben: The chairwoman of the Internet Society of China (ISC)

Madame Hu Qiheng spoke to me about this. She said that there are some

Page 4

very high Chinese government officials who have blogs and they invite

anybody and everybody to comment. They answer as many comments as

they can and they are learning the importance of blogging. She feels that

they will be supportive to the changes that are needed to make the Internet

even more extensive and more well spread in China. She was optimistic

that at least some in the Chinese government were seeing the importance

of the blogging activity and were learning how to be supportive of it in

some way. She wanted that to be known to the world.

Dr. Gabriele Hooffacker: I’m not sure whether I understand. Do they

hope if the people blog they will learn to use the Internet?

Jay Hauben: No, she said the government officials themselves had their

own blogs and receive from the population criticisms and complaints and

other things and they try to answer some. Those officials who have entered

into this back and forth exchange she feels will learn from it and be

supportive in the expanding support for blogging in China.

Dr. Gabriele Hooffacker: There are some examples that netizens can

sometimes get control over the government. Could you give us one

example?

Ronda Hauben: A question that I have is whether netizens can have

some impact on what government does. Traditionally people like James

Mill, writing in England in the 1800s argued that if a people do not have

some oversight over government then government can only be corrupt.

That is why a society needs processes and ways that people can discuss

what government is doing and watch government. I like to use the word

‘watch dogging’ government. A piece of my research is to see if there are

ways that by having the Internet and the ability to participate in the

discussion of issues netizens can have an impact on what government is

doing. I have found situations where there is an impact on government.

One example I give is a blog that is called ‘China Matters.’ Also

there have been articles in ‘OhmyNews International,’ which is the

newspaper for which I write. It is the English edition of the Korean Ohmy-

News, an online newspaper started in 2000.

The blog China Matters was able to post some original documents

from a case involving ‘The SixParty Talks Concerning the Korean

Peninsula.’ The six parties are North Korea, South Korea, the U.S., Russia,

Page 5

China and Japan. There was a breakthrough in the six-party talks in

September of 2005 leading to a signed agreement toward denuclearizing

the Korean peninsula.

Immediately after the breakthrough, the U.S. Treasury Department

announced that it was freezing the assets of a bank called Banco Delta

Asia in Macau, China. Macau is a former Portuguese colony now a part of

China as a special administrative region. Banks in Macau are under the

Chinese banking authority and supervision. The U.S. government was

determining what would happen with this bank in China. The Banco Delta

China had accounts containing $25 million of North Korean funds. In

response to the U.S. causing these funds to be frozen, North Korea left the

six-party talks saying it would have nothing to do with the talks until this

matter got resolved.

In late January and the beginning of February 2007 there were

negotiations between a U.S. government official and a North Korean

official in Berlin. An agreement was reached that there would be an

activity to work out the Banco Delta Asia problem so that the negotiations

could resume in the six party talks.

But often with negotiations with the U.S. whenever there is an effort

to try to straighten something out, the implementation is not done in a way

that is appropriate. In this case what was offered was that North Korea

could send someone to Macau to get the funds but it could not use the

international banking system to transfer the funds which is the normal

procedure.

U.S. Treasury Department officials went to China for negotiations

allegedly to end the financial problems the U.S. had caused for North

Korea. Officials from the different countries were waiting to have this

settled so the negotiations could go on. Instead the U.S. Treasury Depart-

ment officials failed to allow the international banking system to be used

to be able to get the funds back to North Korea.

On the China Matters blog, the blogger posted the response of the

Banco Delta Asia bank owner to these activities. If you read the owner’s

response you would realize that the bank owner was never given any proof

of any illegal activity that had gone on with regard to the funds in his

bank, so there was no justification presented for having frozen the funds

Page 6

of his bank. The U.S. Treasury Department under the U.S. Patriot Act was

able to be the accuser and then the judge and jury, to make the judgement

and then have banks around the world go along.

Jay Hauben: By posting these documents on his blog, the China Matters

blogger made it possible for journalists to write about this aspect of the

case. In one of his blog posts he also put links to the U.S. government

hearing documents that helped to expose the rationale and the intention of

the Treasury Department.

Ronda Hauben: Based on what I had learned from these blogs and then

subsequent research that I had been able to do using the Internet to verify

what the blogger said, I wrote articles that appeared on OhmyNews

International. I was subsequently contacted by somebody from the Korean

section of the Voice of America, the official U.S. State Department world-

wide broadcasting service. She asked me about the articles I had written.

Essentially the Voice of America reporter said that if this situation went on

and the funds were not returned, the Voice of America was going to ask

questions of the people I had identified who had come up with this policy.

It would ask them to explain what they had done and to respond to the

issues raised by my articles.

Just at this time, however, a means was found to get the funds back

to North Korea via the international banking system. All the other prior

times, this had failed.

It was very interesting that this was all happening at the same time.

It provides an example of how a netizen media of blogs and online

newspapers can take up issues like this one, get under the surface to the

actual story and even have an influence on government activity.

The China Matters blog is very interesting because it says that there

is U.S. policy about China being made without the knowledge of the

American people. Therefore the American people do not understand what

is going on or what the issues are. They are not given a chance to discuss

and consider the policy. Somehow these issues have to be opened up, they

have to be more public so that there will be a good policy with regard to

what happens between the U.S. and China.

Dr. Gabriele Hooffacker: So the way was from the netizens and the

bloggers directly to the government and not via mainstream media?

Page 7

Ronda Hauben: In this situation there was one mainstream press that

was different from all the rest. It was the McClatchy newspapers.

McClatchy actually had an article about the China Matters blog. It was

helpful for people to know about the blog. Here was collaboration between

the blogger and the mainstream media but it was not that the rest of the

mainstream media picked up any of that or discussed it. Most of the

English speaking mainstream media just said that North Korea is being

very difficult and that it should be allowing the six-party talks to go on

instead of making this trouble. McClatchy articles and my articles on

OhmyNews tried to understand why North Korea was insisting that this

money be returned using the international banking system. In this situation

there was no need to influence what the rest of the mainstream media said

or did. Voice of America Korea and the U.S. State Department responded

to my articles in OhmyNews directly.

Jay Hauben: In a presentation at a recent symposium, Ronda spoke of

a situation in China of child abduction and labor abuse with little response

by the local government. The situation had been casually covered by local

media but was not solved. Only later when the story appeared prominently

in online discussion sites did it spread. Then it was discussed by a large

cross-section of the population. Finally the government started to act. In

this case, the government had not been influenced by coverage by the local

mainstream media but was pushed by the coverage of the netizen media.

Dr. Gabriele Hooffacker: Ronda, you are a featured writer for

OhmyNews. I do not know whether there is a German edition?

Ronda Hauben: No, there is none at this point. OhmyNews has a

Korean, a Japanese and an English language international edition. There

are German writers who write in English for OhmyNews International.

There is however a German online magazine which I am honored to write

for in English, Telepolis, which I would call an example of netizen

journalism.

Dr. Gabriele Hooffacker: Why do you think that OhmyNews is a good

thing?

Ronda Hauben: The Korean edition of OhmyNews pioneered a concept

which is very interesting. The founder of OhmyNews , Mr. Oh Yeon-Ho,

had worked for an alternative monthly magazine, Mal, for almost 10 years.

Page 8

He saw that the mainstream media which is basically conservative would

cover a story and it would be treated as news. On the other hand, he had

uncovered for Mal a very important story about a cover-up of a massacre

during the Korean War. His story, however, got very little coverage in the

mainstream media and his coverage had no effect. About three years later,

an American reporter covered the same story and got a Pulitzer Prize.

Then the Korean mainstream media picked up the story and gave

substantial coverage to it.

Mr. Oh realized that it was not the importance of an issue that

determined if it would be news, it was rather the importance given to the

news organization that determined that. He decided that Korea needed to

have a newspaper that could really challenge the conservative dominance

of the news. So he set out with a small amount of money and a very small

staff to try to influence how the press frames stories, how it determines

what should be the stories that get covered. He also decided to welcome

people to write as citizen reporters, to support the kinds of stories that

were not being told in the other newspapers. He ended up welcoming in

and opening up the newspaper so that a broader set of the Korean

population could contribute articles to it and could help set what issues

were covered.

One example is the story of a soldier who had been drafted into the

South Korean army. He developed stomach cancer. The medical doctors

for the army misdiagnosed his illness as ulcers and hid the evidence that

it could be cancer. He did not find out until the cancer was too far

advanced for successful treatment. He died shortly after his term in the

army was over. People who knew the soldier wrote the story and

contributed it to OhmyNews. The OhmyNews staff reporters wrote follow

up articles. There were a number of articles, which led to really looking

into what the situation was.

Jay Hauben: There were 28 articles in 10 days. The government first

said that the incident was not significant and that it happened all the time.

But as more and more articles were written and more and more people

were commenting and more and more people were writing letters and

more and more people were blaming the government, the government

changed its tune and acknowledged that there was something seriously

wrong here. The government eventually said it would put 10 billion won

Page 9

over a 5 year period to have a better medical system in the armed services.

That was the result of this 10 days of constant articles. Everybody knew

someone in the army that might get sick and they did not want that to

happen. Every mother was upset. It was a major national phenomenon

from these 28 stories in 10 days.

Ronda Hauben: That is the kind of thing that OhmyNews has done in

the Korean edition. The English language edition does not have regular

staff reporters the way the Korean edition does so is weaker in what it can

do.

A lot of the analysis of OhmyNews in the journalism literature is

only looking at the fact OhmyNews uses people as reporters who are not

part of a regular staff. This literature does not look at the whole context of

what ‘OhmyNews’ has attempted and developed.

But even the practice of the English edition is worth looking at.

There, the Banco Delta – North Korean story was covered in a number of

articles. The OhmyNews staff welcomed these articles. Not only did it

welcome articles on this topic with no similar coverage elsewhere, there

was on the staff an editor who used his experience and knowledge of

North Korea to help the journalists with their articles. He was a very good

person to have as an editor in the English language edition, to be helpful

toward covering that important aspect of the Korean story. Unfortunately

he is not an editor any longer as they had to cut back on their editors.

Journalism articles written about OhmyNews rarely describe this

aspect of OhmyNews, that reporters need a supportive editorial staff that

is knowledgeable about the issues and willing to be really helpful to the

people doing the reporting so that they are not just off on their own but

they can have a discussion and a communication with the people who

work with the paper itself.

Jay Hauben: As a minor footnote, Ronda has some evidence that the

U.S. embassy in South Korea reads OhmyNews. She heard this from the

U.S. ambassador to South Korea and read it in a U.S. State Department

press release.

Ronda Hauben: The press release referred to one of my articles and

something that somebody else had written.

Dr. Gabriele Hooffacker: So netizen journalism is something political?

Page 10

Jay Hauben: From our point of view, yes.

Dr. Gabriele Hooffacker: I’m asking this because some German

publishers/newspapers have another kind of amateur journalism in mind.

They think that journalists are too expensive because they must be paid

wages. So they tell their readers to send them photos, videos and texts and

say that they will publish them. The journalist union is not happy about

this.

Ronda Hauben: The dean of the Columbia University School of

Journalism in New York City wrote an article in The New Yorker

magazine where he complained about what he called ‘citizen journalism’

and referred to OhmyNews. He wrote that it was “journalism without

journalists.” When you carefully read his article, what it came down to,

was that the business form of journalism – which is basically corporate-

dominated in the U.S. and which aims to make a lot of money – has very

little regard for the nature and quality of the coverage that the newspapers

are allowed to do. He was basically defending the business form of

journalism in the name of defending the journalists. He was not defending

the journalists because he was not critiquing in any way what the

journalists who work for these big corporations must do to keep their jobs

and the crisis situation that journalism is in in the U.S. because of it.

What was interesting is that he knew about OhmyNews and he is the

dean of the Columbia Journalism School and yet he presented nothing

about the important stories that OhmyNews has covered. Instead he

referred to one particular day and he listed three stories covered by three

different journalists on this day and said this was just like the kind of

journalism you would have in a church publication or in a club newsletter.

It showed no effort on his part to understand or seriously consider what

OhmyNews has made possible.

I critiqued what he did in an article in OhmyNews International. I

also sent an email message to him asking if he had seen a prior article I

had done in response to what a professor of the journalism school had

posted on ‘The Public Eye’ at CBSNews.com . My prior article answered

the same argument the dean was now making. The ‘Public Eye’ even gave

a link to what I had written in OhmyNews.

The dean of the Columbia Journalism School answered my email

Page 11

acknowledging that he had seen my answer and still he made the same

argument that had been made prior rather than answering my critique of

the argument.

One of the things I pointed out in my critique was that OhmyNews

had helped make it possible for the people of South Korea in 2002 to elect

a candidate to the presidency from outside of mainstream political

community. The dean mentioned nothing about that when he trivialized

what OhmyNews has done and what the developments are. He presented

none of the actual situations and had instead a trivial discussion about the

issues. Yet he was allowed to publish his article in The New Yorker.

OhmyNews sent my response to his article to The New Yorker. The mag-

azine would not publish it. It was interesting that this is being promoted

as the evaluation and the understanding of netizen journalism. It is totally

inaccurate.

Dr. Gabriele Hooffacker: I’m afraid that some professional journalism

teachers in Germany think in narrow-minded categories and only see the

professional standard of journalism and their own journalists but do not

realize what the aim of journalism is anymore – the political participation

and the control of the government.

Ronda Hauben: What I see is that netizen journalism is getting back to

the roots of why you need journalism and journalists.

In the U.S. there is a first amendment because there was an

understanding, when it was formulated, that you have to oversee govern-

ment and that there has to be discussion and articles and a press that looks

at what government is doing and that discusses it and that that discussion

is necessary among the population. Now the Internet is making this

possible. But the corporate-dominated, profit-dominated form of

journalism in the U.S. will not allow that to happen even on the Internet.

Netizen journalism fortunately makes it possible.

What is of interest to me is that the Columbia Journalism School

claims that it supports ethics in journalism. Yet here is a challenge, a

challenge to treat this seriously and to learn about it, to support it, to

encourage it and to help it to spread it. Instead, its dean does the opposite.

Jay Hauben: Let me add two points. One is that OhmyNews and

Telepolis pay their contributors. So this is not free journalism. This is a

Page 12

respect for journalistic effort.

The second point is one Ronda is raising in her current research. Not

only is this new journalism getting back to the roots and the purpose of

journalism but also it is doing something new and different. Is there some-

thing more than just being the real journalist taking over because

mainstream journalism is failing? There is an intuition that the Internet is

making possible a new journalism. Perhaps the Chinese are speaking to

that when they ask, “Are we not being citizens and is it not journalism

when we communicate with each other about the news as we see it and our

understandings as we have them?”

Dr. Gabriele Hooffacker: Do you think that netizen journalism will

affect the mainstream journalism or that the mainstream journalism will

learn from it?

Ronda Hauben: It turned out to be very surprising to me that the

reporter from Voice of America Korea asked me some very serious and

interesting questions. I would have expected maybe a left-wing journalist

would ask these questions but not a mainstream or State Department

journalist.

Why was the Voice of America reporter asking me these questions?

Perhaps some people at the State Department realized there was serious

discussion going on online reflected by my articles but not on Voice of

America or in the mainstream media. And if there is discussion among

people about what is going on, then that leads to the mainstream media

having to learn something or become irrelevant.

Maybe that is already happening because even BBC is exploring

ways of opening up its discussions and processes. Maybe netizen

journalism has already had some impact and there is change happening

even though we do not see it yet.

Jay Hauben: Maybe also the distinction between mainstream and other

media is changing.

At least in South Korea, OhmyNews is already a mainstream media.

Three years after it was created, OhmyNews was reported to be one of the

most important media in the whole society, judged to be among the top six

most influential media in South Korea.

It is not so clear that what we call the great media or the mainstream

Page 13

media is left alone to have that title. The position might be changing. The

founder of OhmyNews, Mr. Oh Yeon-Ho says he would like OhmyNews

to be setting the news agenda for the Korean society. It is his objective that

OhmyNews be the main, mainstream media or at least he says 50 percent

of what happens in the mainstream media should be from the progressive

point of view. There should not be only the conservative mainstream

media but there should be a progressive mainstream media as well and

then those two together – that is what would serve the society.

Ronda Hauben: Let me add that in South Korea other online progres-

sive publications have developed and online conservative publications

have developed. The media situation is much more vibrant now than it had

been, I think this is a result of what Mr. Oh Yeon-Ho has achieved.

Dr. Gabriele Hooffacker: When you look into the future and imagine

what journalism and netizen journalism will be like in 10 years? What are

your expectations? What do you hope and what do you think?

Ronda Hauben: It is an interesting challenge that is being put to us.

There is a lot of support from governments and others toward making big

money off of the Internet. But meanwhile for example, the U.S. society is

in deep trouble because of the ability of government to do things without

listening to the people or considering what the people’s desires are. In my

opinion netizen journalism holds out the hope and the promise that there

can be a means for the citizens and the netizens to have more of a way of

having what is done by government be something that is a benefit to the

society instead of harmful. The form this will take is not clear. But one of

the things that Michael wrote in 1992-1993 was that the net bestows the

power of the reporter on the netizens. He saw that that was already

happening then. And we see Telepolis which last year celebrated its 10

anniversary and which unfortunately we did not get to talk about now but

which has pioneered a form of online and netizen journalism that really is

substantial and which has achieved some very important things. There is

OhmyNews in South Korea and there are the Chinese bloggers and people

posting to the forums. Even in the U.S. some important news forums and

blogs have developed.

Jay Hauben: There are also the people’s journalists in Nepal who took

up to tell the story to the world about the struggle against the king’s

Page 14

dictatorial powers.

Ronda Hauben: They were able to do that because of OhmyNews

International.

I just looked at those few countries for a conference presentation I

gave in Potsdam. I did not look at all the other places where things are

developing. It turns out that online there is a very vibrant environment.

Something is developing and that is a great challenge to people interested

in this, to look at it seriously and try to see, firstly what is developing and

secondly, is there a way to give it support and to figure out if there is way

of beginning to have some conferences for people to get together and have

serious papers about what is happening and some serious discussion

toward the question, can we give each other help for example, to start

something like ‘OhmyNews’ or ‘Telepolis’ in America or similar things

elsewhere. I feel that something will turn up. It is exciting that so much is

in fact going on.

Note

*Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet, Michael Hauben and

Ronda Hauben, Wiley – IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, 1997, ISBN: 978-

0-8186-7706-9. en

[Editor’s Note: The following paper was prepared for the International

Summit on Reconstruction of Journalism conference held at the United

Nations New York Headquarters on May 1-3, 2014.]

Netizen Reporting and Media Criticism

Pressure for a New Journalism

The South China Tiger,

Anti-CNN and the

Wenchuan Earthquake

Page 15

by Jay Hauben

I can say free media works the same way as less-free media. So

what’s most important? The people I’d say — … . If people

dare to doubt, dare to think own (sic) their own, do not take

whatever comes to them, then we’ll have a clear mind, not

easily be fooled. kylin

I. – General Background: Media in Crisis

The dominant media in China and in the U.S. are targets of a

common serious criticism. Scholars point out that the narratives that they

contain are not the news but rather the picture painted under the influence

of the governments and leading establishments in the respective countries

(e.g., Bennett, Lawrence, & Livingston, 2007; Li, 2003). The Chinese

media, at least until recently, has been described as a party or propaganda

press taking as its purpose to portray and explain the viewpoints of the

leadership and party of China and to praise socialist development and cast

a negative light on western capitalism. In the U.S., the closeness and

reliance of the mainstream political media like the NY Times and the

Washington Post on government-provided information and influence and

corporate ownership results in a portrayal of the world in such a way as to

support and give credence to the establishment’s framing of events and

realities. It is not just at the U.S. mainstream political media but also at the

other major international media like CNN, BBC and Deutsche Welle that

this criticism is aimed. Similar to the Chinese media, a purpose of the U.S.

and major international media has been to show the superiority of market

capitalism and freedom over socialism and communism.

The critics ask, whose media are these? They point out these media

fail in any obligation to oversee or supervise their respective governments.

The U.S. media is in crisis. The level of public confidence suggests a

growing rejection especially after its coverage giving credence to the false

story that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, justifying an

invasion and occupation. The established media in China is also in crisis.

Its traditional state and party support purpose cannot compete with the

liveliness and breadth of Internet discussion and online investigative

Page 16

journalism.

In this paper I will argue that netizen activity in China has served as

a pressure for a reexamination and recasting of journalist practice.

Netizens in China have taken many small events and made them into

national discussions and calls for social or political change. One study is

the case of the South China Tiger. It will show how the official

announcement in 2007 of the sighting of a rare tiger was turned into an

exposure of journalistic weakness and official misconduct. Another case

study is of the anti-cnn website. It will show the netizen exposure of

serious malpractice of the international media reporting on the March

2008 Lhasa violence. That exposure by netizens cast serious doubt about

the positive expectation some in China had for the international media.

Having the concrete evidence of the malfeasance of international media

strengthened the anti-cnn netizens to create an online forum where media

events were analyzed from many angles in an international participatory

process that lasted for at least one year. The study of netizen criticism of

Chinese media coverage of the May 2008 Wenchuan (Sichuan) Earth-

quake will document failures of prominent Chinese journalists and argue

the value and impact of the media watchdog function netizens in China are

increasingly playing. Journalism, at least in China, has begun to engage

and benefit from this broadening of citizen participation in its domain.

II. – People in China as Media Critics

At least as far back as the work of Paul Lazarsfeld and others in the

1940s, there have been empirical studies and theoretical analyses

suggesting that media audiences are not passive receptacles for media

messages. More recently, Haiqing Yu (2009, p. 9) wrote, “Empirical

research in active audience studies has demonstrated that people are not

… easily fooled and manipulated by media producers.” China is a good

example. “Like media audiences everywhere, Chinese readers, listeners,

and viewers are active interpreters of content, not passive dupes. Over

time, they have learned to discern overtones, subtexts, and what is not said

along with what is.” (Polumbaum, 2001, p. 270)

Active audience theory argues that people learn to be active decoders

Page 17

of official messages. Many Chinese people have been and are critical

readers of the state and party media. As an illustration, the story is told

that when in January 1976, Zhou Enlai, a leader respected by many

Chinese people at the time died, central leadership seeking to delay the

announcement of that news reported that Zhou’s condition was critical but

still his doctors held out hope for his recovery. Most ordinary people

interpreted these reports to mean Premier Zhou was dead (Naduvath,

2009, p. 116). Also, mass media and communications in China “have

never operated as the well-oiled totalitarian machine envisioned by cold

warriors.”(Polumbaum, 2001, p. 270) Artists, intellectuals, scholars, and

dissidents have always more or less provided a broader spectrum than the

dominant hegemonic culture sought by the party and state.

But many people in China have had the expectation that the

mainstream international media would be more credible. The emergence

of the Internet and the netizens however has made it possible for ordinary

people to share their suspicions about Chinese official media publically

and to turn their critical media sense onto the faults of the international

media like BBC, CNN, Deutsche Welle, Reuters, etc. The Internet is mak-

ing possible a concrete exposure by netizens of the character and faults of

both the main Chinese media and the previously respected international

media.

III. – Who are the Netizens?

Internet adoption in China rapidly expanded since 1995. Such

expansion continues but at a slower pace. It was reported in January 2014

by the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) that there are

more than 618 million Internet users in China. In comparison, the U.S.

was reported to have 260 million users. Approximately 80% or over 500

million Chinese net users access the Internet on mobile devices. Many

users in China participate in online forums, some of whom also contribute

to the over 280 million Chinese language microblogs, known as Weibo.

CNNIC reports that a smaller set of net users are active contributors to

forum and chat room discussions. Among the users who actively

contribute online, I would locate net users who are “netizens,” who prac-

tice some form of netizenship, that is, they defend the Internet and

Page 18

contribute actively to it to affect social and political change.

Netizen as a concept of scholarly interest was first analyzed in the

research of Michael Hauben at Columbia University starting in 1992.

Hauben had participated in the mid and late 1980s on local hobbyist run

bulletin board systems (BBSs) and in global Usenet newsgroups. He

writes that he became aware of “a new social institution, an electronic

commons developing.”

(Hauben & Hauben, 1997, p. ix) He undertook

research to explore how and why these communications forums served as

an electronic commons. He posted questions on newsgroups, mailing lists

and portals and found a very high level “of mutual respect and sharing of

research and ideas fostering a sense of community and participation.”

Hauben found social and political issues being discussed with seriousness

in this online community which the conventional media and his school

courses rarely if ever covered or covered only from a narrow angle.

Hauben documented in the book, Netizens: On the History and

Impact of Usenet and the Internet (Hauben & Hauben, 1997) which he co-

authored with Ronda Hauben that he found in this community of net users

many for whom their self-identity was generated by their online participa-

tion. Hauben found that there were people online who actively use and

take up to defend public communication. They oppose censorship and

disruptive online behavior. He recognized this identification and behavior

as a form of network citizenship. He contracted “net.citizen,” the name on

forums in the 1990s for such people, into “netizen” to express the new

online non-geographically based social identity and net citizenship he

attributed to these people.

As the Internet spread in the mid and late 1990s around the world so

did the online self-identity and practice of netizenship. Two uses of the

word netizen emerged. Especially in analyzing the net in China, it is

necessary to distinguish among all net users (wang min meaning network

people in Chinese) and those users who participate constructively

concerning social and political issues in forums and chat rooms or on their

blogs and microblogs.

This second category is the user who comes online

for public rather than simply for personal and entertainment purposes.

They act as citizens of the net “wang luo gong min meaning ‘network

citizens’ in Chinese” and are the netizens of this article. The distinction

Page 19

must be emphasized because the Chinese characters for network person

wang min are very often translated into English as “netizen.”

I strictly adopt the second usage. Not all net users are netizens. My

usage is similar to that of Haiqing Yu who writes, “I use ‘netizen’ in a

narrow sense to mean ‘Net plus citizen’ or ‘citizen on the net.’ Netizens

are those who use the Internet as a venue for exercising citizenship

through rational public debates on social and political issues of common

concern.” (Yu, 2004, p. 304)

I add, however, that netizens are not only ‘citizens on the net’ but

also ‘citizens of the net’ signifying those who actively contribute to the

development and defense of the net as a global communications platform

(Hauben & Hauben, 1997, pp. ix-x).

In the examples and discussion to follow, it is important to recognize

that the Internet is basically global. Geographic and political boundaries

on the net are weaker than in the physical world. There are approximately

34 million Chinese speaking people living outside of mainland China

including in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. There are perhaps at

anyone time 380,000 Chinese students studying aboard.

For example, in

2014 there are approximately 235,000 students from China studying

temporarily in the U.S. Many Chinese speaking people outside of China

take a keen interest in social and political issues in China. Those online

often participate in forums, chat rooms and blogs hosted on servers in

China and outside. Chinese speaking netizens outside China gain from the

richness and vibrancy of the mainland netizen community and add

viewpoints, media clips and information which further enrich the

information environment and discussions in which netizens in China

participate. Efforts at what the government and party of China call

supervision and netizens call censorship have only a limited effect, in part

because of the borderless essence of the Internet. In the examples that

follow it is often likely but difficult to tell whether netizens from outside

China have participated.

Information and communication technology (ICT), for at least the

last 20 or 25 years, has been officially promoted as one of the most

important driving forces of China’s economic development. The Chinese

government and party actively support the spread of the Internet and its

Page 20

active use by people within China. Tai Zixue (2006) reports, “The Chinese

government has displayed an unusual level of enthusiasm in embracing the

Internet since the mid-1990s … by investing heavily in the infrastructure

and in promoting Internet use among its government agencies, businesses,

and citizens.” Another scholar commented, “In China, if the government

does not push, hardly anything grows so quickly.” (Guo, 2006) When

reporting about the Internet by media outside of China, the predominant

stress of censorship in China misses this level of support and adoption.

The long-standing governance philosophy and practice of “benevolent”

supervision and guidance in all aspects of Chinese society are still

prevalent and results in the censorship emphasized by that media.

But

official emphasis on “reform and opening” especially an economic market

oriented development is changing the nature of such supervision and

guidance. The result is the rapid spread of the Internet and its active use

(averaging for net users in China in 2014 almost three hours per day)

supported by the highest government and party officials. Broadband and

mobile access was already available to about 40% of the population by the

beginning of 2014. Although still disproportionately in the urban areas and

with a little over 50% of the people of China without Internet access, the

level, speed of adoption and the active participation by net users is

significant. A foreign journalist working in Beijing commented that users

in China “are usually too busy enjoying the Internet they have to lament

the Internet they do not have.” And, as the examples which follow show,

many of them are using it as netizen journalists with the purpose of social

and political improvement.

IV. – Case Studies

China became a particular media focus during the dramatic events

leading up to and surrounding the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing. This

paper however will start with an example from 2007 when netizens

uncovered fraud and with the eventual help of the mainstream media

achieved official recognition of the fraud and punishment of the perpetra-

tors and covers up.

Page 21

South China Tiger (2007)

Although there have been occasional reports in China that signs of

the South China tiger have been seen or roars heard, the species has been

thought to be extinct in the wild. There had been no confirmed sighting

since 1986. However on Oct. 12, 2007 in a press conference, the Forestry

Department of Shaanxi Province in northwest China announced a verified

sighting. A South China tiger, the Department spokesperson claimed, was

photographed by a farmer with optical and digital cameras on Oct. 3. One

photo was released. The spokesperson also said that experts had confirmed

that the 40 digital and 31 film photographs were authentic. The announce-

ment was carried in local and a few national media. On Oct 13, China

Central Television, CCTV, the predominant state television broadcaster

in China briefly reported about the official announcement in its Joint News

Broadcast: “Recently, the rare wild South China has been found in

Shaanxi after going out of sight for more than twenty years. A peasant in

Ankong town, Ping county took a clear photograph of a wild South China

tiger near a cliff. Experts have determined the photograph to be authentic.”

(EastSouthWestNorth, 2007)

But already in the afternoon of Oct 12, the one released digital photo

had been posted along with the news release on a forum frequented by

photographers and users of the Photoshop software application. Six hours

later, a forum member raised suspicion that the photograph seemed to

have been composed using Photoshop. The photo was reposted on other

forums discussing photo presentation technologies. Soon a wave of doubt

spread with online contributors citing irregular effects of illumination and

focus, unreal fur color, lack of three dimensional effect, etc. Some netizens

speculated that the digital photo may have been taken from a cardboard

enlargement placed in the bushes to be photographed. The next day a self-

described Photoshop expert argued that based on the size of the leaves in

the released photo, if authentic, the actual size of the tiger would be near

that of a rat.

Comments were reposted and other online communities became

involved in the dispute. Various hypotheses were proposed but there was

near unanimous conviction, despite the official announcement of authen-

ticity and the reports in the press accepting the accuracy of the official

Page 22

announcement, the photo was faked. National and international media

picked up and welcomed the story of the sighting but also began to include

mention of netizen skepticism. Experts answered some of the posts

agreeing or disagreeing about the authenticity of the photos. The farmer

reasserted that he had risked his life to photograph the tiger and that is

photos were genuine. Shaanxi Province officials defended the announce-

ment. Well-known wildlife photographers joined the online debate.

The demand arose online for more expert analysis of all the photos

and an independent investigation of the farmer’s claim. The motive of the

Forestry Department was questioned. Why did it not take more time to

verify the photos? Was it hoping for increased tourism or new money for

a wild life preserve? The online discussion questioned even more the

motives of the authorities than that of the farmer who also received reward

money for the photos. One netizen posted on the Tianya Forum under the

name First Impression 1. The post was a response to the CCTV broadcast

welcoming the sighting and declaring it authentic. The netizen used Photo-

shop to make an animation of two photos that appeared online to show

they had “identical facial features, outlines, stripes and height.” He or she

wrote, “At first sight, this photograph could not be more fake. The

lighting, the expressions, the color, the environment … how can this pass

through the examination by experts on the South China wild tiger as well

as photography experts? Did they make the examination with eyes shut?”

(EastSouthWestNorth, 2007). On Fu Jianfeng’s blog,

(

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4776545401000 bob.html, Oct. 20, 2007),

it was reported that the Shaanxi “Animal Protection Bureau director Wang

Wanyun … told the media: ‘I am willing to guarantee the authenticity of

this photograph with my head.’” The blogger also reported that a Chinese

Academy of Science plant researcher, Fu Dezhi posted on the Yuanmu

Shanchuan Forum that the leaves in the photos were either oak or hazelnut

which are about 3 cm in size. In all photos one of the leaves is covering

the tiger’s forehead so the tiger in the photo must be part of a cropped

photograph about 8 inches square. Fu Jiangfeng ended his blog writing “…

people don’t need their heads, they don’t need to swear, they only need to

know the truth.”

On Nov 15, a netizen posted that he had found the original picture

Page 23

that was used to fake the South China tiger sighting. He had discovered a

lunar new years calendar for 2001 which had all the features of the photos

being debated. The Shaanxi authorities responded that they would

continue the investigation. Eight months later, they tried to end the paper

tiger saga, as it was called on the net, by announcing the photos were fake.

The farmer was arrested on charges of fraud and 13 provincial officials

were dismissed or disciplined for their role in the episode. But, netizen

comments which followed mostly complained about official sluggishness.

Despite the efforts of the “pro-tiger” officials and the experts they

found to defend the authenticity of the sighting, many netizens had kept

up the exposure of fraud. As in the Hwang Woo-suk case in South Korea

where netizens challenged the officially supported stem cell scientist,

Chinese netizens were willing to challenge the photos as fake even when

the provincial authorities and the mainstream media initially backed their

authenticity. In the end the search for the truth prevailed.

Netizen attention to detail in photographs was repeated when media

reports appeared especially in North America and Europe about the

violence in Tibet in March 2008.

Anti-cnn (2008)

On March 14, 2008, Tibetan demonstrators in Lhasa the capital of

the Tibet Autonomous Region in China turned violent. A Canadian tourist

and the few foreign journalists who witnessed the situation put online

photos, videos and descriptions documenting the deadly violence of the

rioters against citizens and property (Al Jezeera, 2008; cali2882, 2008;

Kadfly, 2008). That was even before the official Chinese media started to

report it. The mainstream media in China framed the story as violence

against Han and Muslim Chinese fomented by the Tibetan government in

exile. Much of the mainstream international media like BBC, VOA, and

CNN framed the violence as the result of discriminatory Chinese rule and

Chinese police brutality. (For an exception see Jill Drew, “Eyewitnesses

Recount Terrifying Day in Tibet,” Washington Post Foreign Service,

Thursday, March 27, 2008, online at:

https://www.washingtonpost.com

/wp-dyn /content/article/2008/03/26/AR2008032603275.html.)

Page 24

Wide anger was expressed by many Chinese aboard when they

discovered that some of the media in the U.S., Germany, and the U.K.,

were using photos and videos from clashes between police and pro-

Tibetan independence protestors in Nepal and India to support that

media’s claim of violence by Chinese police. A digital slide show

appeared online (dionysos615, 2008) containing an annotated presentation

of 11 photos from CNN, Der Spiegel, the Washington Post, N24 German

TV, BBC, Fox News, Bild, etc. The photos were mislabeled and in other

ways inappropriate for the articles with which they appeared. The photos

included screen shots from German TV stations that consistently labels

Nepalese police as Chinese. A BBC photo showed an ambulance using it

to illustrate a “heavy military presence.” A photo used by CNN to show

Chinese military violence was carefully cropped to hide rioters throwing

rocks at a Chinese military vehicle. The slide show ended with a slide

which read, “These western media should be shamed for the reporting

they’ve made purposely and whoever in the world, intending to slander

Chinese people to promote territorial integrity of China will be doomed to

failure.” The slide show spread widely in cyberspace in and outside China.

Within a few days of the appearance of the inaccurate and mislead-

ing reporting, Rau Jin a recent university graduate launched the anti-cnn

website (http://www.anti-cnn.com). He explained that after netizen anger

and discussion he wanted to “speak out our thoughts and let the westerners

learn about the truth.”

The top page of anti-cnn featured articles, videos

and photos documenting some of the alleged distortions in the coverage

of the Tibet events. The website also had forum sections first in Chinese

then also in English. The organizers set as the goal of anti-cnn to

overcome media bias in the West by fostering communication between

Chinese netizens and netizens outside of China so that the people of the

world and of China could have accurate knowledge about each other. They

wrote on their website, “We are not against the western media, but against

the lies and fabricated stories in the media.” anti-cnn was chosen as the

site name, one of the organizers said, “because CNN is the media

superpower. It can do great damage so it must be watched and challenged

when it is wrong.”

But the site was not limited to countering errors in the

reporting of CNN. It invited submissions that documented bias or

countered misrepresentations of China in the global media.

Page 25

Rau received hundreds of offers of help finding examples of media

distortions. He gathered a team of 40 volunteers to monitor the submis-

sions for factualness and to limit emotional threads. Posts that were name

calling or attacks on individuals or groups were to be deleted. Emotional

posts were not to be allowed follow-up comments. Forum discussions

were started on “Western Media Bias,” “The Facts of Tibet” and “Modern

China.” In the first five days the site attracted 200,000 visits many from

outside of China. Over time serious threads contained debates between

Han Chinese and both Westerners and Tibetan and Uyghur Chinese trying

to show each other who they were and where they differ or where they

agree.

On anti-cnn, in answer to the exposure of the Western media

practice, many visitors from outside China posted their criticism of

Chinese government media censorship. In their responses to such

criticism, some Chinese acknowledged such censorship but argued it was

easy to circumnavigate, that all societies have their systems of bias or

censorship and that netizens everywhere must dare to think for themselves

and get information from many sources. One netizen with the alias kylin

wrote:

I can say free media works the same way as less-free media.

So what’s most important? The people I’d say— … . If people

dare to doubt, dare to think own (sic) their own, do not take

whatever comes to them, then we’ll have a clear mind, not

easily be fooled. I can say, if such people exist, then should be

Chinese … the least likely to be brainwashed, when have suf-

fered from all those incidents, cultural revolution, plus a whole

long history with all kinds of tricks.

Some analysis of anti-cnn in the Western media criticized it as a

form of nationalism (e.g., Kuhn, 2008) or of being somehow connected

with the Chinese government. The Chinese government and anti-cnn

organizers deny any connection with each other and no verifiable evidence

of such a connection has been produced. There are often expressions of

nationalist emotions in Chinese cyberspace, for example calls for

boycotting Japanese and French products. After the riot in Lhasa, the

Chinese government and media blamed the Dalai Lama and “splitists.”

Page 26

There was an upsurge of nationalist defense of China including on anti-

cnn. The moderators on anti-cnn and netizens in general however are

opponents of nationalism arguing that it is a form of emotionalism and

needs to be countered by rational discourse and the presentation of facts

and an airing of all opinions. The moderators often answered Chinese

nationalists with admonitions to “calm down and present facts.” While

nationalist sentiment and love of country and anger appeared often on the

anti-cnn forums, the opportunity for a dialogue across national and ethnic

barriers is an expression of the internationalism characteristic of netizens.

Chinese citizens in general know that the mainstream Chinese media

have a long history as a controlled and propaganda press. Since the 1990s,

there has been a commercialization of that media and more openness but

still much of the national media has strong remnants from its past. On the

other hand the mainstream international media had been widely assumed

in China as a more reliable source of information about some events such

as SARS and for alternative viewpoints. The widespread distribution by

netizens like Rau Jin of exposure of distortions and bias in major examples

of the international mainstream media called into question for many

Chinese people their positive expectation about that media. It also

attracted the attention of others who questioned whether the so called

Western mainstream media is any less a propaganda or political media

than the Chinese mainstream media. After western media framing of the

war in the country of Georgia in August 2008 as the fault of Russia, a

Russian netizen started a thread on anti-cnn suggesting a Russian-Chinese

alliance. He wrote:

Russian problems with the Western media are identical to

Chinese problems … . What [do] we need to do so that their

publications about countries like China and Russia will be

written in a fair tone rather than being politically motivated?

I would be most happy to hear your opinion on these matters.

Over its first year, the anti-cnn website had become a significant

news portal. After a year, there was a debate to determine its future. Some

of the founders left. The site continued with separate forum sections in

Chinese and English but became less focused than it was before on

exposing media bias. As a continuation of anti-cnn, the April Media Group

Page 27

was founded by Rau Jin. April Media sponsored Chinese and English lan-

guage websites both known as M4. The two sites carried news reports and

comments not usually found elsewhere in Chinese media and exposures

of the ongoing media fabrications, for example about alleged crimes of the

government of Syria.

Wenchuan Earthquake (2008)

On May 12, 2008 at 14:28 in the afternoon local time a massive

earthquake struck in south-central China. The epicenter of the earthquake

was in rural Wenchuan County, Sichuan Province and measured 8.0 on the

Richter Scale. The world outside of the quake zone began to learn of the

earthquake one minute later, at 14:29, when a post on the “Tianya Mixed

Talk” forum read, “Very Urgent!!!! Where has a massive earthquake

occurred???” By 14:30 a video was posted on YouKu and by 14:35 a

headline on the Baidu bulletin board reported, “Earthquake happens in

Sichuan region.” From then on posts escalated. Tianya is the most popular

forum website and had at the time on average over 200,000 simultaneous

visitors. Likewise YouKu, the most popular video website at the time, and

Baidu, the most popular search engine, had tens of thousands of users

when the Wenchuan disaster first hit. Professional news reports began to

online appear at 14:46 with a dispatch by the official online site Xinhuanet

(Nip, 2009, p. 98).

Online communication was interrupted in the epicenter. But some

witnesses and survivors were able to send out messages using mobile

phones which the recipients put online. Also, survivors who were able to

walk or drive out of the disaster area brought with then photographs and

videos they took using their phones or cameras. These began to appear

online and were picked up by off line media and by CCTV. With roads

destroyed and all landline telephone service down to and in the hardest hit

villages, material posted by netizens gave the mainstream media some of

the stories and all of the graphics for its reports.

Great concern was felt and voiced throughout China and the rest of

the world for the victims of the earthquake. There was a hunger for news.

Netizens started a discussion thread on “Tianya Mixed-Talk” for

Page 28

contributions of casualty information and estimates. As the thread was

updated it was visited almost one million times in the first nine hours after

the quake first hit.

Netizens provided information from the disaster zone, expressed

their sympathy and emotions, started to organize grassroots relief efforts,

organized missing person lists and in many ways contributed online in the

relief and rescue effort. Some netizens also raised serious questions. A

netizen posted on the Tianya Mixed Talk forum a few hours after the

quake “Some questions and reflections about this quake.” He questioned

why there was no early warning of the coming of such a major quake.

Netizens searched for and found evidence that there were early warnings

which the Seismology Bureau ignored. A netizen on Tianya left one

remark, “Before May 12, some strange nature phenomena predicting

earthquakes appeared in earthquake zone and some local persons worried

about earthquakes coming, but local officials and forecast agencies

declared that the rumor of earthquake was baseless and people need not

worry.”(Xu, 2008) Mainstream journalists joined in the pursuit of this

story questioning some of the relevant officials. Netizens also called

attention to the number of schools which collapsed and questioned

whether the problem was systemic.

The earthquake was the main news event for many days. Govern-

ment officials allowed journalists unprecedented access to the disaster

zone. The Internet and the off-line media were watched intently for news

and understanding of the disaster and the unfolding rescue effort. Criticism

began to appear online of the behavior and reporting of some of the

professional journalists, especially those seeming to be insensitive to the

victims and survivors. One well known anchor person from the Phoenix

TV station in Hong Kong, Chen Luyu, appeared at a destroyed village

with heavy makeup, wearing designer sunglasses and carrying a parasol.

One netizen commented:

Phoenix Chen Luyu, you dressed like that kind of a show at the

ruins … . I put many viewers to see your ugly performance …

the majority of the audience spurned your behavior, you are a

very individual phenomenon, 99% of people really want to

help the suffering compatriots, not to see a show.

(Reese &

Page 29

Jai, 2009, p. 227; Tianya, 2008)

Many other netizens showed similar disdain toward Chen Luyu and

other reporters who seemed frivolous or insensitive. Reese and Dai (2009,

p. 227) reported that “[t]he same anger emerged online toward journalists

when they forced busy rescuers and seriously injured or dying victims to

be interviewed, when they took up seats in rescue helicopters, when they

presented the tragedy of the earthquake with bloody and graphic pictures

and descriptions, or when they shot flash photos of victims faces without

regard for the trauma the bright lights would inflict on those who had

spent so much time trapped under the ruins in darkness.”

Netizen criticism was also aimed at CCTV’s coverage of the disaster

and rescue effort. The awkwardness and insensitivity of some of its

coverage was not only blamed on the reporters but also on the media

organization itself. A well read blogger and former CCTV reporter, Shi

Feike, suggested that CCTV’s control over its reporters and infrequent live

coverage of major disasters like the earthquake accounted for the failures

of some of its earthquake rescue reporting

(Shi, 2008).

During the time of the earthquake and rescue efforts, activities of the

netizens became part of the news covered by the mainstream media. But

also, netizen criticism of some well-known journalists and of, for example,

CCTV was widely circulated online. As a result, respect for the netizens

throughout China was enhanced. One observer commented, “I am deeply

touched by the patriotism and humanism shown in the activities of our

netizens.” Another wrote, “This catastrophic disaster aroused the civil

conscience and responsibility of Chinese, and showed the power of

Chinese netizens.”

V. – Discussion

The Three Cases

Professional or mainstream journalists in the three cases above

required the collaboration of netizens and ordinary citizens for their

coverage. It was difficult for the former to get to rural Wenchuan after the

earthquake or to have the expertise and critical attitude of the online

photographer community. Only after netizens around the world exposed

Page 30

the media fabrications about the Lhasa riots was the mainstream media in

China able to report about them by reporting about the anti-cnn website.

But the mainstream media have more access to economic and official

resources and TV and newspapers are still popular in China. Media

scholars looking at China see an emerging netizen-journalist collaboration.

But besides collaboration, netizens are playing the role of media critics.

The special significance of anti-cnn was that netizens took up the

important task of media watchdog, but especially a watchdog over the

most powerful media like CNN and BBC. Some scholars are calling such

media practice the “Fifth Estate” because the watchdog is over the media

itself. In an article, “The Computer as a Democratizer,” Michael Hauben

argued for the crucial role in a society of a watchdog press (Hauben &

Hauben, 1997, pp. 315-320). In every society, major sectors of the media

echo and support the current holders of power either internally or in the

world. Now, with the netizens, there is an emerging media and journalism

which tries to serve society by watching and criticizing the abuses of those

with power and the media which serves them. Anti-cnn provided for the

whole world an alternative to the media which was distorting the truth

about the Lhasa riot. The net users who launched anti-cnn took for

themselves a public and international mission, using the net to watch

critically the main international media. They took up to address journalism

via exposures and discussion and debate. In the process they expanded the

practice of journalism.

Similarly, at the time of the Wenchuan earthquake, netizens created

a space for the public to examine and discuss journalistic operation not

only at the individual level, but also at the organizational level (Reese &

Jai, 2009, p. 228). Holding professional journalists to their own high

standards was a service to the profession. Discussing the practice of

CCTV, the predominant state television broadcaster in China, added to

netizen supervision of the official media and encouraged public scrutiny

and criticism of even the official media.

Context

In 2003 in China, there were numerous large scale netizen commo-

tions and almost 58,000 officially acknowledged off line social and

Page 31

political ‘mass incidents.’ In September 2004, the Fourth Session of the

Sixteenth Chinese Communist Party Central Committee responded. The

long standing policy orientation ‘Efficiency First’ was withdrawn. It had

been criticized by netizens who in the course of their uprisings traced the

specific problem to this systemic root. Netizens argued that ‘efficiency

first’ meant putting business success before the welfare of the great

majority of the people. The Central Committee replaced ‘Efficiency First’

with the policy orientation ‘Harmonious Society’. This conceptual

framework seemed to be aimed at moving the focus in China away from

only economic efficiency and toward a societal balance. One practice

advised for the implementation of the harmonious society was to foster

“interest expression” ( Li Yi Biao Da) by accommodating more ordinary

citizens’ voices in the public sphere (Lei, 2012, p. 135).

Some of the party and state support for netizen activity stems from

this policy decision to encourage interest expression. So also does the

increasing incorporation of reporting about netizen activity and netizen

concerns in the mainstream media and parallel reporting by netizens and

professional journalists of events which arouse netizen concern. The

dominant stress of censorship reported by media outside of China hides

this level of support and the rapidly expanding new use for social and

political reporting, discussion and debate in China.

Every year since 2003, there has been dozens of national netizen

uprisings and commotions around social and political issues, sometimes

exposing fraud or corruption or questioning government actions or expla-

nations, sometimes discussing foreign events like disruption of the

Olympic touch relay, sometimes exposing failures of the press or of star

journalists. They have become a normal aspect of Chinese society.

Netizen Effect on Journalism in China

Often ahead of the mainstream media, netizen uprisings set the news

agenda. Local events are given by netizen activity national or international

attention. In alliance with more independent journalists and editors, online

issues can spread to the main stream national media and to the whole

Chinese people. Netizen critical framing of issues often differs from

government and mainstream media framing. When popular opinion is

Page 32

formed about these issues it often follows the netizen rather than the

government or mainstream media framing. Also, the fight around

censorship is creative and spirited not only by netizens. When journalists

have stories rejected they sometimes put the stories online, often in their

own blogs or microblogs (called J-Blogs). More and more the stories get

out despite the imposed restrictions. Even though there is still a significant

level of official media supervision and control, a growing body of critical

reporting is occurring often encouraged by or encouraging netizen

excitement.

Some journalists come online for their leads and to find contacts to

interview. Some are emboldened by netizen exposures and numbers to dig

deeper and take on more controversial topics. The result is the media

environment in China is livelier than in societies with less netizen activity

even if those societies have less media supervision and guidance.

Setting the agenda, framing issues, arousing public opinion and

supervising the media are all aspects of political power in modern society.

That the netizens in China are able to play these roles, often with the help

of more mainstream journalists and editors suggests a political dynamism

in Chinese society that is denied by critics of China. Netizens in China are

developing into a force contributing to motion of Chinese society in the

direction of greater citizen participation. Those journalists who ally with

the netizens are helping a new journalism to emerge, a netizen journalism

in China but also globally.

Appendix: Two Case Studies

Case 1: The Death of Sun Zhigang

(2003)

To help control migration of rural people to the cities, the Chinese government had

in place for more than 20 years, “Measures for Internment and Deportation of Urban

Vagrants.”

On March 17, 2003, a college graduate from the city of Wuhan working away from

home in the city of Guangzhou was stopped for an identity check. He was detained under

these measures because he did not have the temporary residence card he was asked to

show. In the police station he contacted two friends who came quickly to vouch for him

and his employed status. The police would not release him. Three days later his friends

tried to contact him and were notified that he died from a heart attack. After learning of

Page 33

Mr. Sun’s death, his relatives and friends contacted the local police for an explanation but

received no definite answer as to what happened.

With financial help from Mr. Sun’s former classmates, his family was able to have

an autopsy performed which indicated that Mr. Sun was brutally beaten before his death.

One of the classmates who was studying media in Beijing posted an appeal for help

concerning Mr. Sun’s death on a cyber forum for discussion among media professionals

from all over China. A journalist working for the South Metropolitan Daily took the post

as a lead and decided to initiate interviews of the family and authorities involved.

About

one month after the death, a detailed report about it appeared in the South Metropolitan

Daily with the headline, “University graduate detained and cruelly beaten to death for not

showing temporary residence card.”

On the same day, the journalist also made the report

available online on the Southern Net news site.

Following the reports, the news was picked up by editors of other online news

portals. The net was quickly flooded with anger at the death and appeals for justice. Major

national forums

featured extensive discussions of the detention system, the death of Mr.

Sun and its implications. Other netizens commented about the obvious injustice and

denial of his constitutional rights. Portal sites made the case a Hot Topic where links to

related stories were gathered. Chinese language forums outside of China were also used

for discussions and analysis of the case.

A memorial page was launched by a software engineer. It eventually received over

200,000 visits, many visitors leaving comments, messages of sadness and some money

donations to the family. Some comments gave examples of other cases of police brutality.

Others went further, demanding an end to the official policy that treated migrants as lower

class citizens.

The intense online reaction influenced further reporting first by big non-

governmental media and then by the mainstream national media, feeding more online

ferment. A special committee was formed by the Guangzhou government to investigate

Sun’s death. The subsequent blunt denial by the police of responsibility enraged many

netizens. Their reaction was critical comments now focusing on the weakness of the

investigation procedures.

Contributions of articles, responses, comments and calls for action appeared online

from activists, lawyers and academics, all of whom had no other option of where to

publish their critical analysis. Online news articles typically received tens of thousands

of responses. Live chat discussions formulated demands for a thorough investigation,

punishment for those involved, change or abolition of vagrancy measures, and an

immediate end to deportations. The combination of online outrage and mainstream media

coverage made the case a topic of household conversation everywhere in China. People’s

Daily began to publish selected netizen comments in its online news site. Pressure from

online communities, social groups and the central government gave the local officials no

choice but to initiate a more serious investigation. The investigators acknowledged that

netizen pressure added to their determination, resulting in thirteen arrests reported. An

open trial from June 5 to 9 ended with 12 convictions of guards at the detention center and

Page 34

some of the detainees. There was one death sentence. Twenty-three governmental

officials and police officers were disciplined for their roles in the death and lack of action

after it.

Even after the arrest, online petitions were circulated and online protest letters were

addressed to the National People’s Congress calling for abolition of the current custody

and repatriation system. Such letters virtually never appear in Chinese off line media. On

May 15, a netizen posted an article, “On the Violation of ‘Legislation Law’ by the

Holding System: The Case of Sun Zhigang” on a site maintained by the government

which was followed by an online examination of the existing anti-vagrancy laws. On June

18, after over 20 years of enforcement, the State Council decide to abolished the 1982

Measures under which Mr. Sun had been detained. New measures were initiated which

did not allow for detention but required a system of help for homeless people be available

on a voluntary basis.

The collaboration of netizen and traditional media set the news agenda and helped

public opinion to form so that the death of Sun Zhigang, an ordinary person, was given

extensive national coverage. This led to the relatively quick end of a long standing

oppressive and discriminatory law. One scholar described this as “one of the first cases

of popular opinion overriding and resetting official agendas and the first demonstration

of the sociopolitical power of Chinese netizenship.”

Case 2: BMW Incident (2003)

On Oct 16, 2003, two farmers, Liu Zhongxia and her husband, rode their tractor

loaded with onions through a narrow street in Harbin, capital city of Heilongjiang

Province in Northeast China. The tractor accidentally scrapped the rearview mirror of a

car parked on the side of the street. The car was a BMW owned by Su Xiuwen’s

businessman husband. Ms. Su caused a commotion haranguing the two farmers because

of the damage to her husband’s expensive car. Then she got back into the car and drove

it into the crowd which had gathered because of the commotion. Ms. Liu was killed and

12 bystanders were injured.

Ms. Su was tried in a Harbin court on Dec. 20. None of the bystanders testified.

They had each received money from Ms. Su’s husband. After two hours, the court ruled

Ms. Su had not been properly handling her car. The death of Ms. Liu was judged acci-

dental. Ms. Su was given a two year sentence which was suspended. There was brief local

media coverage of the trial and it seemed it would pass as a fatal traffic accident, one of

many every day in every country.

But two days after the trial, a post about the case appeared on the Strong Nation

Forum, “Attention: The BMW killed a farmer.” The person posting made three main

points: 1. Ms. Su was related to a high ranking official. 2. Ms. Su had killed Ms. Liu

deliberately. 3. The trial did not follow legal procedures. The post unleashed a wide

spread questioning and discussion of the case throughout Chinese language cyberspace.

Soon there were over 70,000 comments and opinions relating to the case on one portal

alone. Many netizens saw in the incident a posing of the questions of rich versus poor in

Page 35

China, and justice versus corruption.

Within two weeks the BMW incident became the online hottest topic in the China.

Journalists from outside the province who followed the online commotion went to Harbin

to investigate and report for their newspapers. After January 8, China’s mainstream

national media began intensive coverage. After all this attention, local authorities and

legal organs began a reinvestigation.

The online uproar over the case put it on the national news agenda and offered an

alternative framing to that of the court and the local media. Almost half of the early posts

looked for “behind the scenes” reasons for Ms. Su’s light sentence. Less than ten percent

accepted the court’s decision. Other netizens sought to understand the underlying causes.

Some suggested remedies like greater government accountability to public opinion.

There was a growing call for the authorities to open a new investigation and hold

a new trial. When it was reported in the press that province officials promised “a

satisfactory solution to the ‘BMW case’ will be offered to the public,” a post on the

Strong Nation Forum titled “Why should we trust you?” precipitated a cynical thread

casting doubt on the credibility of the officials.

More and more the question raised was

what kind of China do we want? A netizen with the alias stellyshi commented that history

shows that “… justice originates with the truth. But now in the world, or in China, the

truth means nothing. In modern China, with power and money, you can say anything as

you like. Even you can kill one person as you want. So, what is this? Is this fare (sic)? Is

this so-called socialist country? I don’t think so. Never!!! … .”

The hundreds of thousands of online posts took many forms including analysis,

argumentation, poems, novels, dramas, letters, animations, and jokes. Most posts were

sympathetic to Ms. Liu and hostile to Ms. Su. For many netizens, Ms. Su and Ms. Liu,

the BMW and the onion cart became symbols of the growing gap and the character

differences between the rich and the poor in China. While much coverage in the

mainstream media called for government transparency and social improvement, a major

direction taken in netizen posts was to raise the question of the direction in which China

should be going. The mainstream media called for step-by-step social improvement, the

online discussion raised deeper systemic questions.

The off-line media and the government in response to the massive netizen activity

took more action then they would have otherwise. A new investigation was promised and

a retrial of Ms. Su. But by mid January the government forbad the mainstream media

from any further coverage. It also required the deletion of some and finally all old posts

and any new netizen contributions on the major forums and portals. At the new trial there

was no greater penalty for Ms. Su and the monitoring and deleting of BMW related posts

caused online attention to shift to other incidents and issues including net censorship.

In this incident all the netizen activity did not lead to a different legal outcome. But

it was another example that ferment around a not very uncommon event can lead to

examination of contradictions buried in society. It is arguable that this netizen uprising

had an effect on Chinese society regardless of the legal outcome or the deletion of

hundreds of thousands of netizen comments. And in September 2004, the Fourth Session

Page 36

of the Sixteenth CCP Central Committee rejected the long standing policy orientation

“efficiency first” which had been criticized by some netizens who in the course of their

uprisings traced the specific problem to this systemic root.

Notes

1. “Preface: What is a netizen,” an earlier version is online at:

http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.txt

2. Forum software hosted on Internet accessible servers allows for sequential and threaded

online text discussions which can be monitored and moderated. Similarly hosted chat

room software allows for simultaneous multiple participant real time text conversations.

In China, most forums allow alias registration and are often archived. Chat room sessions

are ephemeral and are not easily monitored.

3. Chinese students are studying in some 103 countries and most densely populated in

schools in the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada, Germany, France and Japan.

4. For a discussion of Internet control in China, see Kluver 2006.

5. Quoted in China Daily, April 2, 2008,

https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-

04/02/content_6587120_2.htm

6. Interview with anti-cnn webmaster Qi Hanting, April 19, 2008, translated from

Chinese. See Hauben, 2008.

7. Machine translated from posts in Chinese at Tianya (2008) chat forum about the

performance of Chen.

8. Chinese original cached at Baidu Content is no longer available.

9. This case is well covered in the scholarly literature. See for example, Ibid., Tai (2006),

pp. 259-268 and other references in the following notes.

10. Ibid., p. 260.

11. Shaoguag Wang, “Changing Models of China’s Policy Agenda Setting,” Modern

China, 2008, 34 p. 79.

12. “A university graduate was taken into custody without a temporary residence permit

and was beaten to death,” in Southern Metropolis Daily, April 4, 2003, online at:

http://news.sina.com .cn/s/2003-04-25/09501015845.shtml (In Chinese). See also,

Haiqing Yu, “From Active Audience to Media Citizenship: The Case of Post-Mao

China,” Social Semiotics, 16 (2), June 2006, pp. 303-326.

13. http://news.21cn.com/social/shixiang/2003-04-25/1021755.ht ml (No longer

available.)

14. Like Strong Nation Forum (qiangguo luntan), Development Forum (fazhan luntan)

and China Youth Forum (zhongqing luntan)

15. Haiqing Yu, “Talking, Linking, Clicking: The Politics of AIDS and SARS in Urban

China,” positions: east asia cultures critique, 15 (1) Spring 2007,

https://www

.researchgate.net/publication/265748880_Talking_linking_clicking_The_politics_of

Page 37

_AIDS_and_SARS_in_urban_China

16. Christina Yuqiong Zhuo and Patricia Moy, “Frame Building and Frame Setting: The

Interplay Between Online Public Opinion and Media Coverage,” paper presented at the

annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Dresden, June 16, 2006.

17. Comment #11 at: http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/redirect.php?tid=39672&goto=lastpost

&highlight=n (No longer available.)

18. Ibid., Shaoguang Wang, note 11, p. 80.

References

Allan, Stuart and Thorsen, Einar (2009). Citizen Journalism: Global Perspectives, New

York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Al Jezeera (2008, March 15). Retrieved from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v

=zfnBVKrzX6Y (access restricted).

Bennett, Lance W., Lawrence, Regina G. and Livingston, Steven (2007). When the

Press Fails: Political Power and the News Media from Iraq to Katrina. Chi-

cago. The University of Chicago Press.

cali2882 (2008, March 15). Tibet Riot, you wont see this on CNN and BBC. YouTube.

dionysos615 (2008, March 19). Riot in Tibet: True face of western media.

YouTube. Retrieved from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSQnK5FcKas

&feature=related

EastSouthWestNorth (2007, Oct 19). “The South China Tiger Photographs.” Retrieved

from:

http://www.zonaeuropa .com/20071019_1.htm

Guo Liang (2006, April 26). “China’s Internet Development and Its Impact on Public

Opinion.” Speech.

Hauben, Michael & Hauben, Ronda (1997). Netizens: On the History and Impact of

Usenet and the Internet. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.

Hauben, Ronda (2008). “Netizens Defy Western Media Fictions of China.”

OhmyNews International. May 9. Retrieved from:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACn20-2.pdf (pp. 7-9).

Kadfly (2008, March 15). Retrieved from:

http://kadfly.blog spot.com/2008/03/lhasa-

burning.html (access restricted).

Kluver, Randy (2006). “Open Systems and Opening Societies: Guo Liang on China’s

Internet,” interview, Brisbane Australia, Sept 27-30.

Kuhn, Anthony (2008). “Web Site Rips West’s Reports on China-Tibet Conflict.”

Retrieved from:

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId

=89831099?storyId=89831099

Lei Guo (2012). “Collaborative efforts: An exploratory study of citizen media in

China.” Global Media and Communication, 8 (2). Retrieved from:

https://journals.sagepub.com /doi/10.1177/1742766512444341.

Page 38

Li Xiguang (2003). “ICT and the Demise of Propaganda in China.” Global Media

Journal, 2 (3). Retrieved from:

https://www.globalmediajournal.com/open-

access/ict-and-the-demise-of-propaganda-in-china.php?aid=35112

Naduvath, Jaibal (2009). “Chinese Media in Perspective and Analyzing Vectors of

Media Reform.” Journal of Creative Communications 4 (2).

Nip, Joyce (2009). “Citizen Journalism in China: The Case of the Wenchuan Earth-

quake.” In Citizen Journalism: Global Perspectives, Stuart Allan and Einar

Thorsen, New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Polumbaum, Judy (2001). “China’s Media: Between Politics and the Market.” Current

History, 100 (9).

Reese, Stephen D. and Jai Dai (2009). “Citizen Journalism in the Global News Arena:

China’s New Media Critics.” In Citizen Journalism: Global Perspectives,

Stuart Allan and Einar Thorsen, New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Shi Feike (2008). “Xu Na say a few words.” My1510. May 24.

Tai Zieue (2006). The Internet in China: Cyberspace and Civil Society. New York:

Routledge.

Tianya (2008). Chat Forum (in Chinese). Retrieved from:

http://groups.tianya.cn/laiba

/CommMsga?cmm=281&tid=2600915412149663923

Xu Liang (2008). “The Power of Chinese Netizens After the Earthquake.” OhmyNews

International. June 7.

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACn27-1.pdf (pp. 23-25)

Yu, Haiqing (2006). “From Active Audience to Media Citizenship: The Case of Post-

Mao China.” Social Semiotics 16 (2).

Yu, Haiqing (2009), Media and Cultural Transformation in China. London:

Routledge.

[Editor’s Note: The following article documents how some of the unifying

foundation was set for the broad nonviolent demonstrations of the people

of Egypt which took place January 25 to February 11, 2011.]

Netizens in Egypt and the

Republic of Tahrir Square*

by Ronda Hauben

On Wednesday February 8, 2011 the Egyptian Ambassador to the

Page 39

United Nations, Maged A. Abdelaziz, spoke to journalists at a stakeout

outside the Security Council.

There had been an ongoing set of questions

to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and his spokesman and to the Security

Council President by journalists covering the United Nations in an effort

to understand what role the UN is able to play in the struggle going on in

Egypt. In response to a question about the ongoing assault at the time on

journalists by police in Egypt, the Ambassador said that someone from the

foreigner side was instigating the uprising.

This refrain accusing outsiders of instigating the Egyptian uprising

had also been expressed by Egyptian government officials a few days

earlier. What is significant about this claim is that it denies the internal

process by which the Egyptian people had organized themselves over a

multi year series of struggles. These struggles included labor struggles,

anti-repression demonstrations and online discussions to help to determine

a set of political and economic demands uniting the different sectors of

Egyptian society.

The claim of outside instigators ignores the role played by active

online discussion and other forms of communication by a diversity of

political actors, of citizens empowered by their access to the Internet, who

had been striving for a more just and dynamic Egypt.

In the early 1990s, a university student in New York, Michael

Hauben, took up to do research to explore the political power of the

developing networks. Through his research he discovered that a new form

of citizenship was being born online.

In response to a set of questions Hauben sent out to people with Net

access in the early 1990s, he received descriptions of how people were

exploring how to use the Net to solve the many social and political

problems of our times. He called these users who were active citizens

exploring how the Net could help to make a better world netizens (Net +

Citizen = Netizen). For Hauben, not all users were netizens. Instead he

reserved the use of this term to describe those users who empowered by

the Net, were exploring how to contribute to a better world.

Many of the characteristics that Hauben discovered among netizens

in the early 1990s are also the characteristics of netizens who have been

part of the struggle to change Egypt.

Page 40

Describing some of how the process of mobilization developed,

Charles Hirschkind, in his article, “From the Blogosphere to the Street:

The Role of Social Media in the Egyptian Uprising” writes, “The seeds of

this spectacular mobilization had been sown from across the political

spectrum.”

Hirschkind describes how a political alliance grew up between

the secular leftist organizations and groups with Islamic ties (particularly

the Muslim Brotherhood), working together to defend victims of state

torture.

Another example of an organization working across the political

spectrum in Egypt was the Kifaya movement, a coalition of those with

diverse political leanings united in their demand that Egyptian President

Mubarak step down and that his son Gamal not succeed him.

With the emergence of this movement in 2004-2005, bloggers

became a significant part of the protest activities, reporting on the protests

and discussing them online. One blogger, Wael Abbas is mentioned for

distributing a video clip of a man being physically abused by the police in

Cairo. This video and other forms of online reporting helped to build a

movement in Egypt against police abuse.

Another contribution to the protests was from the many labor

struggles in previous years. Strikes helped to spread the sense of the

importance of struggle in Egypt. Bloggers, Facebook groups, and others

online took part in the discussion of grievances and in spreading the

information about mobilizations.

April 6, 2008 was an important example of the power of the alliance

of online netizens and workers working together to challenge the abusive

practices of the Mubarak government.

Hirschkind describes how online discussion and communication

helped to transform diverse political ideas into a common set of political

objectives. “They have pioneered,” he writes, “forms of political critique

and interaction that can mediate and encompass the heterogeneity of

religious and social commitments that constitute Egypt’s contemporary

political terrain.”

It was this evolving communication among Egyptian netizens, not

foreign instigation, that helped to provide the platform for a movement

which was able to embrace a broad spectrum of Egyptian citizens.

Page 41

Describing the movement that developed, Nubar Hovsepian, in his article,

“The Arab Pro-Democracy Movement: Struggles to Redefine Citizenship”

writes:

Organizationally it is more like a network than our outmoded

top down structures . … This is a revolution in the making

sparked by youth who are determined to alter the dominant

paradigm of politics and power that precludes the central idea

which undergrids democracy citizenship under a social

contract.

Hovsepian argues that a new relationship between the Egyptian

government and the citizens is at the heart of the movement:

Simply put, Arab youth are leading a profound revolt whose

central objective is the transformation of former ‘subjects’ into

‘citizens’ with agency and voice to make demands of their

rulers. The rulers are expected to be servants of their citizens

– nothing less is acceptable.

Mohammed Bamyeh in his article, “The Egyptian Revolution: First

Impressions from the Field”

describes the 18 days of the Egyptian

uprising as the dawn of a new civic order. He points to many of the

grassroots forms that developed during the days of the uprising, one of

which was a mass “civic character as a conscious ethical contrast to the

state’s barbarism.” He describes the transformation of people’s sense of

themselves and of their capability as an integral part of the process of the

movement:

Like in the Tunisian Revolution, in Egypt the rebellion erupted

as a sort of a collective world earthquake – where the central

demands were very basic, and clustered around the respect for

the citizen, dignity, and the natural right to participate in the

making of the system that ruled over the person.

This goal, Bamyeh explains, was expressed as well by even,

Muslim Brotherhood participants (who) chanted at some point

with everyone else for a ‘civic’ (madaniyya) state – explicitly

distinguished from two other possible alternatives: religious

(diniyya) or military (askariyya) state.

Describing the significance of these developments, Hovsepian

Page 42

regards the Egyptian events as the Arab equivalent of the French

Revolution. In a paper I presented in Paris at Sorbonne III in summer

2010, titled “Watchdogging to Challenge the Abuse of Power: Netizenship

in the 21

Century,” I proposed that the important achievement of the

French Revolution was the conceptual transformation of the former

subjects into the citizens to be regarded as the sovereign of the State.

“It

was the citizens who were to possess the power of the nation … . It is

among the citizens that the discussion and decisions to determine the

progress of the nation belongs.” This goal or vision has been considered

only as an ideal for over 200 years, as citizens have lacked the capability

to exert their supervision over the government or corporate officials who

have grabbed the power of the state.

The Egyptian revolution had its groundwork set by the Egyptian

netizens and it is this foundation that provides a strength to meet the many

trials to be faced in the days and years after 2011.

Hence it is not foreign instigators who are responsible for seeding

the soil of the mighty movement that removed Mubarak from power.

Instead it was a resurgence of the ideals and demands of citizens which

fueled the French Revolution, but which are now strengthened by the

actions and deeds of the netizens.

Notes

1. Stakeout at Security Council, Maged A. Abdelaziz to the press on February 8, 2011.

https://www.unmultimedia.org/avlibrary/ass et/U110/U110208g/

2. Michael Hauben, “The Net and the Netizens, in On the History and Impact of Usenet

and the Internet,” IEEE Computer Society Press, http://www.columbia.edu

/~hauben/netbook/

3. Charles Hirschkind, “From the Blogosphere to the Street: The Role of Social Media in

the Egyptian Uprising,” Jadaliyya, February 9, 2011. http://www.jadaliyya.com

/pages/index/599/from-the-blogosphere-to-the-street_the-role-of-social-media-in-the-

egyptian-uprising

4. Nubar Hovsepian, “The Arab Pro-Democracy Movement: Struggles to Redefine

Citizenship,” Jadaliyya, February 9, 2011.

http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index

/588/the-arab-pro-democracy-movement_struggles-toredefine-citizenship

5. Mohammed Bamyeh, “The Egyptian Revolution: First Impressions from the Field

[Updated],” Jadaliyya, February 11, 2011. http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index

Page 43

/561/the-egyptian-revolution_first-impressions-from-thefieldupdated

6. Ronda Hauben, “Watchdogging to Challenge the Abuse of Power: Netizenship in the

Century,” Paper presented on July 13, 2010 at Sorbonne III, Paris, France

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

*This article was first published on April 16, 2011 on the netizenblog online at:

https://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2011/03/16/net izens_egypt_tahrir_square/

Editor’s Note: The following paper was prepared for the annual meeting

of the Chinese Community of Political Science and International Studies

(CCPSIS) which was held in Beijing on July 14-15, 2012.]

The Role of Netizen

Journalism in the Media War at the

United Nations*

by Ronda Hauben

Preface

The history of journalism includes many different forms of

publication and many different methods of organization of those publica-

tions. Journalism scholars like Chris Atton and Tony Harcup of the U.K.

point to a wide continuum of how the news is produced and who are the

journalists who produce it. These scholars argue that it is too narrow to

restrict the definition and consideration of journalism to commercially or

government produced media. Instead these scholars propose that the many

forms of alternative journalism should be considered as part of the

spectrum of journalism and those who produce for these publications are

to be considered in any study of journalists.

Traditionally alternative journalism provides for a broader set of

issues to be raised than is common in commercially produced mainstream

Page 44

media. Often, too, alternative publications allow for a broader set of

sources to be utilized. Such a media often reflects not only a criticism of

the limitations of the mainstream commercial media, but also a demonstra-

tion that another form and practice of journalism is viable.

With the creation and the spread of the Internet, the emergence of a

new form of citizenship, know as netizenship, has developed. Also a

critical and vibrant form of online journalism has begun to develop. I call

this journalism, netizen journalism. A more detailed exploration of this

phenomenon is beyond the scope of this paper as the paper is for a panel

on questions related to the United Nations. As such, the paper will focus

on the impact of netizen journalism on the United Nations and on issues

related to the United Nations. But an awareness of the emerging phenom-

enon of netizen journalism can help to provide a context for issues

investigated in this paper.

Introduction

In this paper I take three conflicts which are or have been on the

agenda of the United Nations Security Council. The paper will explore the

role of netizen journalism in relation to the efforts to resolve these

conflicts in a peaceful manner. The three examples the paper will consider

in relation to the UN are 1) the Cheonan conflict in South Korea (2010),

2) the war against Libya (2011), and 3) the crisis in Syria (2011-2012).

I. Medvedev and the Challenge of Media

Manipulation to International Relations

In a recent speech, Dmitry Medvedev, Prime Minister of the Russian

Federation, spoke about what he called “the new security dimensions” in

international relations.

“Today,” he said, “we are witness to persistent

attempts to make mass manipulation of public opinion a tool in interna-

tional relations.” He offered as an example what he calls the media

campaign against Syria.

“Syria’s case is illustrative in this respect,” Medvedev said. “A very

active media campaign unfolded with respect to Syria.” He explained,

“What is clear is that this media campaign had little to do with ending the

Page 45

violence as rapidly as possible and facilitating the national dialogue that

we all want to see there.”

He attributed this media campaign to the nature of what is consid-

ered the politics of certain countries. Describing this politics, he explained,

“This sees a country or group of countries instill their own aims and

objectives in the consciousness of others … with other points of view

rejected.”

What I propose is important about his talk for our panel on “The UN

is a Dilemma” is that Medvedev argues that media manipulation by certain

political actors presents a serious problem for the field of international

relations. He argues that such a media campaign against Syria interferes

with the goal of international relations “to concentrate on professional and

serious discussion rather than propaganda efforts,” so as to be able to work

out “a common approach to settling this conflict.”

While he does not see journalism as able to help solve this problem,

I want to propose that there is the development of an alternative form of

journalism that is taking on the problem. This is the journalism I call

netizen journalism. Netizen journalism seeks to challenge the misrepresen-

tations and distortions of mainstream western journalism that Medvedev

presents as a serious challenge to international relations. Netizen

journalism encourages not only the exposure of the distortions in the

mainstream media, but research and writing to provide the background and

information needed to determine how to settle a conflict. By challenging

the media campaign fomenting a conflict, netizen journalism becomes a

participant in the media war at the UN.

II. The Cheonan Incident, the UN, and Netizen Journalism

I first turn to the details of what happened with the Cheonan conflict

which was brought to the UN in 2010, to examine how netizen journalism

affected the media war in that situation and helped to make a significant

contribution to the peaceful resolution of the conflict that was embraced

at the Security Council.

The Cheonan incident concerns a South Korean naval ship which

broke up and sank on March 26, 2010. At the time it was involved in naval

exercises with the U.S. military in an area in the West Sea / Yellow Sea

Page 46

between North Korea and China. This is a situation that had been the

subject of much discussion on the Internet.

Initially the South Korean government and the U.S. government said

there was no indication that North Korea was involved. Then at a press

conference on May 20, 2010, the South Korean government claimed that

a torpedo fired by a North Korean submarine exploded in the water near

the Cheonan, causing a pressure wave that was responsible for the sinking.

Many criticisms of this scenario have been raised.

There was no direct evidence of any North Korean submarine in the

vicinity of the Cheonan. Nor was there any evidence that a torpedo was

actually fired causing the pressure wave phenomenon. Hence the South

Korean government had no actual case that could be presented in a court

of law to support its claims.

In fact, if this claim of a pressure wave were true even those

involved in the investigation of the incident acknowledge that “North

Korea would be the first to have succeeded at using this kind of a bubble

jet torpedo action in actual fighting.”

The dispute over the sinking of the Cheonan was brought to the

United Nations Security Council in June 2010 and a Presidential State-

ment was agreed to a month later, in July.

An account of some of what happened in the Security Council during

this process is described in an article that has appeared in several different

Spanish language publications

The article describes the experience of the

Mexican Ambassador to the UN, Claude Heller in his position as president

of the Security Council for the month of June 2010. (The presidency

rotates each month to a different Security Council member.)

In a letter to the Security Council dated June 4, 2010 the Republic of

Korea (ROK) more commonly known as South Korea, asked the Council

to take up the Cheonan dispute. Park Im-kook, then the South Korean

Ambassador to the UN, requested that the Security Council consider the

matter of the Cheonan and respond in an appropriate manner.

The letter

described an investigation into the sinking of the Cheonan carried out by

South Korean government and military officials. The conclusion of the

South Korean investigation was to accuse North Korea of sinking the

South Korean ship.

Page 47

Sin Son Ho was the UN Ambassador from the Democratic People’s

Republic of Korea (DPRK), which is more commonly known as North

Korea. He sent a letter dated June 8, 2010 to the Security Council, which

denied the allegation that his country was to blame.

His letter urged the

Security Council not to be the victim of deceptive claims, as had happened

with Iraq in 2003. It asked the Security Council to support his govern-

ment’s call to be able to examine the evidence and to be involved in a new

and more independent investigation on the sinking of the Cheonan.

How would the Mexican Ambassador as President of the Security

Council during the month of June handle this dispute? This was a serious

issue facing Heller as he began his presidency in June 2010.

Heller adopted what he referred to as a “balanced” approach to treat

both governments on the Korean peninsula in a fair and objective manner.

He held bilateral meetings with each member of the Security Council

which led to support for a process of informal presentations by both of the

Koreas to the members of the Security Council.

What Heller called “interactive informal meetings” were held on

June 14 with the South Koreans and the North Koreans in separate

sessions attended by the Security Council members, who had time to ask

questions and then to discuss the presentations.

At a media stakeout on June 14, after the day’s presentations ended,

Heller said that it was important to have received the detailed presentation

by South Korea and also to know and learn the arguments of North Korea.

He commented that “it was very important that North Korea approached

the Security Council.” In response to a question about his view on the

issues presented, he replied, “I am not a judge. I think we will go on with

the consultations to deal in a proper manner on the issue.”

Heller also explained that, “the Security Council issued a call to the

parties to refrain from any act that could escalate tensions in the region,

and makes an appeal to preserve peace and stability in the region.”

Though the North Korean Ambassador at the UN rarely speaks to the

media, the North Korean UN delegation scheduled a press conference for

the following day, Tuesday, June 15. During the press conference, the

North Korean Ambassador presented North Korea’s refutation of the

allegations made by South Korea. Also he explained North Korea’s

Page 48

request to be able to send an investigation team to the site where the

sinking of the Cheonan occurred. South Korea had denied the request.

During its press conference, the North Korean Ambassador noted that

there was widespread condemnation of the investigation in South Korea

and around the world.

The press conference held on June 15 was a lively event. Many of

the journalists who attended were impressed and requested that there be

future press conferences with the North Korean Ambassador.

During June, Heller held meetings with the UN ambassadors from

each of the two Koreas and then with Security Council members about the

Cheonan issue. On the last day of his presidency, on June 30, he was

asked by a reporter what was happening about the Cheonan dispute. He

responded that the issue of contention was over the evaluation of the South

Korean government’s investigation.

Heller described how he introduced what he refers to as “an

innovation” into the Security Council process. As the month of June

ended, the issue was not yet resolved, but the “innovation” set a basis to

build on the progress that was achieved during the month of his presi-

dency.

The “innovation” Heller referred to, was a summary he made of the

positions of each of the two Koreas on the issue, taking care to present

each objectively. Heller explained that this summary was not an official

document, so it did not have to be approved by the other members of the

Council. This summary provided the basis for further negotiations. He

believed that it had a positive impact on the process of consideration in the

Council, making possible the agreement that was later to be expressed in

the Presidential statement on the Cheonan that was issued by the Security

Council on July 9.

Heller’s goal, he explained, was to “at all times be as objective as

possible” so as to avoid increasing the conflict on the Korean peninsula.

Such a goal is the Security Council’s obligation under the UN Charter.

In the July 19, 2010 Security Council’s Presidential Statement

(PRST) on the Cheonan, what stands out is that the statement follows the

pattern of presenting the views of each of the two Koreas and urging that

the dispute be settled in a peaceful manner.

Page 49

In the PRST, the members of the Security Council did not blame

North Korea. Instead they refer to the South Korean investigation and its

conclusion, expressing their “deep concern” about the “findings” of the

investigation.

The PRST explains that “The Security Council takes note of the

responses from other relevant parties, including the DPRK, which has

stated that it had nothing to do with the incident.”

With the exception of North Korea, it is not indicated who “the other

relevant parties” are. It does suggest, however, that it is likely there are

some Security Council members, not just Russia and China, who did not

agree with the conclusions of the South Korean investigation.

Analyzing the Presidential Statement, the Korean newspaper

Hankyoreh noted that the statement “allows for a double interpretation and

does not blame or place consequences on North Korea.”

Such a

possibility of a “double interpretation” allows different interpretations.

The Security Council action on the Cheonan took place in a situation

where there had been a wide ranging international critique, especially in

the online media, about the problems of the South Korean investigation,

and of the South Korean government’s failure to make public any

substantial documentation of its investigation, along with its practice of

harassing critics of the South Korean government claims.

One such critique included a three part report by the South Korean

NGO People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD).

This

report raised a number of questions and problems with the South Korean

government’s case. The PSPD document was posted widely on the

Internet and also sent to the President of the United Nations Security

Council for distribution to those Security Council members interested and

to the South Korean Mission to the UN.

There were many blog comments about the Cheonan issue in

Korean.

There were also some bloggers writing in English who became

active in critiquing the South Korean investigation and the role of the U.S.

in the conflict.

One such blogger, Scott Creighton who uses the pen name Willy

Loman, wrote a post titled “The Sinking of the Cheonan: We are being

lied to”

On his blog “American Everyman,” he explained how there was

Page 50

a discrepancy between the diagram displayed by the South Korean

government in a press conference it held, and the part of the torpedo on

display in the glass case below the diagram.

He showed that the diagram did not match the part of the torpedo on

display. The South Korean government had claimed that the diagram

displayed above the glass case was from a North Korean brochure offering

the torpedo identified as the CHT-02D.

There were many comments on his post, including some from

netizens in South Korea. Also the mainstream conservative media in South

Korea carried accounts of his critique.

Three weeks later, at a news conference, a South Korean government

official acknowledged that the diagram presented by the South Korean

government was not of the same torpedo as the part displayed in the glass

case. Instead the diagram was of the PT97W torpedo, not the CHT-02D

torpedo as claimed.

Describing the significance of having documented one of the

fallacies in the South Korean government’s case, Creighton writes:

(I)n the end, thanks to valuable input from dozens of con-

cerned people all across the world … . Over 100,000 viewers

read that article and it was republished on dozens of sites all

across the world (even translated). A South Korean MSM

outlet even posted our diagram depicting the glaring discrep-

ancies between the evidence and the drawing of the CHT-O2D

torpedo, which a high-ranking military official could only

refute by stating he had 40 years military experience and to his

knowledge, I had none. But what I had, what we had, was

literally thousands of people all across the world, scientists,

military members, and just concerned investigative bloggers

who were committed to the truth and who took the time to

contribute to what we were doing here.

‘Forty years military experience’ took a beating from ‘we the

people WorldWide’ and that is the way it is supposed to be.

This is just one of a number of serious questions and challenges that

were raised about the South Korean government’s scenario of the sinking

of the Cheonan.

Page 51

Other influential events which helped to challenge the South Korean

government’s claims were a press conference in Japan held on July 9 by

two academic scientists. The two scientists presented results of experi-

ments they did which challenged the results of experiments the South

Korean government used to support its case.

These scientists also wrote

to the Security Council with their findings.

Also a significant challenge to the South Korean government report

was the finding of a Russian team of four sent to South Korea to look at

the data from the investigation and to do an independent evaluation of it.

The Russian team did not accept the South Korean government’s claim

that a pressure wave from a torpedo caused the Cheonan to sink.

Such efforts along with online posts and discussions by many

netizens provided a catalyst for the actions of the UN Security Council

concerning the Cheonan incident.

The mainstream U.S. media for the most part, chose to ignore the

many critiques which have appeared. These critiques of the South Korean

government’s investigation of the Cheonan sinking have appeared mainly

on the Internet, not only in Korean, but also in English, in Japanese, and

in other languages. They present a wide ranging challenge of the veracity

and integrity of the South Korean investigation and its conclusions.

An article in the Los Angeles Times on July 28 noted the fact,

however, that the media in the U.S. had ignored the critique of the South

Korean government investigation that is being discussed online and spread

around the world.

On August 31, an op-ed by Donald Gregg, a former

U.S. Ambassador to South Korea, appeared in the New York Times, titled

“Testing North Korean Waters.” The article noted that “not everyone

agrees that the Cheonan was sunk by North Korea. Pyongyang has

consistently denied responsibility, and both China and Russia opposed a

U.N. Security Council resolution laying blame on North Korea.”

Netizens who live in different countries and speak different

languages took up to critique the claims of the South Korean government

about the cause of the sinking of the Cheonan. Such netizen activity had

an important effect on the international community. It also appears to have

acted as a catalyst affecting the actions of the UN Security Council in its

treatment of the Cheonan dispute.

Page 52

In his op-ed in the New York Times, Gregg argued that, “The

disputed interpretations of the sinking of the Cheonan remain central to

any effort to reverse course and to get on track toward dealing effectively

with North Korea on critical issues such as the denuclearization of the

Korean Peninsula.”

North Korea referred to the widespread international sentiment in its

June 8 letter to the Security Council. The UN Ambassador from North

Korea wrote:

It would be very useful to remind ourselves of the ever-

increasing international doubts and criticisms, going beyond

the internal boundary of south Korea, over the ‘investigation

result’ from the very moment of its release … .

The situation that the North Korean Ambassador referred to is the

result of actions on the part of South Korean netizens and civil society

who challenged the process and results of the South Korean government’s

investigation. Also, there was support for the South Korean netizens by

bloggers, scientists and journalists around the world, writing mainly online

but in a multitude of languages and from many perspectives. Several of the

non-governmental organizations and scientists in South Korea sent the

results of their investigations and research to members of the Security

Council to provide them with the background and facts needed to make an

informed decision.

The result of such efforts is something that is unusual in the process

of recent Security Council activity. The Security Council process in the

Cheonan issue provided for an impartial analysis of the problem and an

effort to hear from those with an interest in the issue.

The effort in the Security Council was described by the Mexican

Ambassador, as upholding the principles of impartiality and respectful

treatment of all members toward resolving a conflict between nations in

a peaceful manner. It represents an important example of the Security

Council acting in conformity with its obligations as set out in the UN

charter. In the July 9 Presidential Statement, the Security Council urged

that the parties to the dispute over the sinking of the Cheonan find a means

to peacefully settle the dispute. The statement says:

The Security Council calls for full adherence to the Korean

Page 53

Armistice Agreement and encourages the settlement of out-

standing issues on the Korean peninsula by peaceful means to

resume direct dialogue and negotiation through appropriate

channels as early as possible, with a view to avoiding conflicts

and averting escalation.

Ambassador Gregg is only one of many around the world who have

expressed their concern with the course of action of the U.S. and South

Korea as contrary to the direction of the UN Security Council Presidential

Statement. Gregg explained his fear that the truth of the Cheonan sinking

“may elude us, as it did after the infamous Tonkin Bay incident of 1964,

that was used to drag us [the U.S.] into the abyss of the Vietnam War.”

Despite this dilemma, the Security Council action on the Cheonan dispute,

if it is recognized and supported, has set the basis instead for a peaceful

resolution of the conflict.

While the netizen community in South Korea

and internationally were able to provide an effective challenge to the

misrepresentations by the South Korean government on the Cheonan

incident, the struggle over the misrepresentations of the conflict in Libya

was less successful.

III. False Claims that Led to the War Against Libya

A short article at the Current Events Inquiry website lists several

provocative claims which helped to provide a false pretext for the NATO

bombing of Libya.

Among them were reports by Al Jazeera and the BBC

that the Libyan government had carried out air strikes against Benghazi

and Tripoli on February 22, 2011. Russia Today reports that the Russian

military who had monitored the unrest in Libya from the beginning, “says

nothing of the sort was going on on the ground.”

According to the report by the Russian military, the attacks had

never occurred.

Another such claim widely circulated by major western media very

early in the Libya conflict was that the Libyan government “is massacring

unarmed demonstrators.” The NGO, the International Crisis Group (ICG)

in its June 6, 2011 report says that such claims were inaccurate. The report

explains that this version of the events in Libya “would appear to ignore

evidence that the protest movement exhibited a violent aspect from early

Page 54

on.” This includes evidence that early in the protests, “demonstrations

were infiltrated by violent elements.”

Similarly the ICG report found no evidence for claims that the

Libyan government “engaged in anything remotely warranting use of the

term ‘genocide’.” A similar criticism was made of the claim that “foreign

mercenaries” were employed by the Libyan government. A report by

Amnesty International which is described in an article in The Independent

newspaper in the U.K. on June 24, 2011 says that, “The Amnesty Report

found no evidence for this.”

Netizen Journalism on the Conflict in Libya Presents a Different

View

From the early days of the false media claims targeting Libya for an

outside intervention to remove its government, a growing set of articles

and comments were written and published online exposing the lack of

evidence for these claims and demonstrating that they were distortions

with a political purpose. These articles exposing the distortions were read

and distributed by a growing set of online reporters. These examples

demonstrate that a different form of journalism is emerging. While such

a form of journalism may not yet appear to present an adequate challenge

to the gross misrepresentations and inaccuracies spread by much of the

mainstream western and Arab satellite media about the Libyan conflict,

the nature of this newly developing form of journalism is important to

explore and to understand.

This new journalism has at least two important aspects. One is

serious research into the background, context and political significance of

conflicts like that in Libya or Syria. Another is the application of this

research to the writing of articles or to comments in response to both

mainstream and alternative media articles.

As an example of this netizen journalism related to the conflict in

Libya, I want to refer to a small collection of articles titled “Libya, the

UN, and Netizen Journalism.”

This collection contains articles focusing

on a critique of actions at the UN that provided the authority for the

NATO war against Libya.

One article in that collection, “UN Security Council March 17

Page 55

Meeting to Authorize Bombing of Libya All Smoke and Mirrors” is about

the Security Council meeting which passed Resolution 1973 by a vote of

10 in favor and 5 abstentions. The article includes some sample comments

from online discussions about what was happening in Libya at the time.

While the UNSC members at the March 17 meeting speak about their

support for the resolution to “protect Libyan civilians,” there was no

acknowledgment that the resolution instead would in effect support the

ongoing armed insurrection against the government of Libya.

While Security Council delegates and the mainstream media

described what was happening in Libya as “peaceful protestors” attacked

by a “brutal government,” online discussion of the situation during this

same period described the opposition in Libya as engaged in an armed

insurrection. The following sample from comments from a discussion of

an article on the British Guardian website in March 2011 provides an

example of netizens questioning and critiquing the actions of the Security

Council and asking why the UN is protecting and supporting an armed

insurgency:

“Armed civilians or uninformed fighters have no place being

supported or protected by our air power. They carry a gun and get targeted

that is their look out, not our job to hit the other side.” James St. George,

22 March, 2011.

“The thing is the rebels are ‘civilians’ when ever it suits us.” llundiel,

23 March, 2011.

“Of course once you start bombing, there will clearly be plenty of

collateral damage.

This then makes a complete mockery of the stated purpose of the

intervention, to save innocent civilians.” contractor000, 23 March, 2011.

“Yes tanks are not planes! Or in the air flying. The civilian protec-

tion has no place extending to armed rebels, they are not civilians.” Cock-

fingersMcGee, 23 March, 2011.

“So we are supposed to accept this scenario that the Military

aggression against Libya is to do with protecting the protesters, the

revolution, innocent civilians, the rebels etc. This sounds very reminiscent

of attacking Iraq because of WMD.” comunismlives, 22 March, 2011.

Similar discussions were going on at other websites. Here, for

Page 56

example, are some comments from a discussion at the Hidden Harmonies

website.

“Resolution 1973 is also directed at rebel force, but we are not

bombing the rebels, but usurping the resolution to provide air cover in aid

of the rebels. Prolonging Libya’s civil war only brings more harm to the

civilians, and facilitating division of Libya’s sovereignty, are contraven-

ing/violating the resolution.” Charles Liu, March 22, 2011.

“We can argue technicalities, but everyone knows the current U.S.-

led bombings are toward weakening Qadhafi and to bolster the rebel

opposition. Obama and the Coalition publicly say so.”

“Its like seeing a thief caught on video sneaking around in a store

and after seeing no one around, pockets the candy. He also says he is

stealing.”

“Now we are suppose to ‘prove’ it? That’s quite retarded.” DeWang,

March 22, 2011

“‘under threat of attack’ clause includes threat of attack by the

rebels, yet we are not bombing them for their incursion outside Benghazi.

This violates the preamble’s stated limit of military authorization to not

divide Libya’s sovereignty. Not withstanding any sort of red herring and

semantics wiggling, the selective air strike in aid of the rebels violates UN

resolution 1973, while 1970 gave no legitimacy to the armed rebellion in

Libya, which the legitimate government of Libya has the sovereign right

to sanction against.” Charles Liu, March 22, 2011.

“I just don’t understand why the bombing is taking place at all.”

“1) It is a civil war. Why should the west take sides?”

“2) Wasn’t Gaddafi the U.S.’s pet since Bush II? Why is the U.S.

seeking to remove one of their puppets? Is the U.S./west looking for

another Iraq?”

“I wouldn’t be one bit surprised if this war was instigated by Wall

Street looking to make a killing on oil and commodities.” colin, March 22,

2011.

“It’s a historical pattern of these UN Resolutions, including way

back when the Korean War started, that ‘all necessary force’ is the general

catch phrase for ‘unrestrained warfare’ limited only by what weapons are

Page 57

available.”

“Now, even the high cost of the cruise missiles, $1 million a pop, is

not enough to deter the launching of 100s of these.”

“Well, I guess we are going to see the cost, sooner or later.” r v,

March 23, 2011.

These two examples of selected comments from online discussions

at the time demonstrate that netizens raised serious concerns and critiques

of the Security Council action passing UN Resolution 1973, while the

mainstream media mainly reported what western governments were

saying.

Similar questions and critiques were raised throughout the conflict

in articles by independent journalists who were in Libya during much of

the period of the defense of Libya from the NATO bombing and the

NATO support for the armed insurrection in Libya. Such journalists

included Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya of Global Research, Thierry Meyssan,

from Voltairenet, Lizzy Phalen who reported for various outlets including

PressTV, and Franklin Lamb whose articles were carried on various

websites.

Also a group that called itself Concerned Africans published an open

letter which they also submitted to the UN Secretary General, the UN

Security Council and the UN General Assembly. The letter which was

signed by over 300 concerned Africans, described what it called the

contribution to “the subversion of international law.” The letter maintained

that in passing UNSCR 1973, “the Security Council used the still

unresolved issue in international law of ‘the right to protect’ the so called

R2P, to justify the Chapter VII military intervention in Libya.”

Other

articles focused on the violations in Security Council procedures repre-

sented by allowing Libyan officials who had defected to appear at the

Security Council representing Libya.

Similarly, Professor Mahmood Mamdani, at Columbia University

who has studied the region and its history, points to the “political and legal

infrastructure for intervention in otherwise independent countries,” namely

the Security Council and the International Criminal Court working

‘selectively,’ that has been created by Western powers.

Among the many websites at the time publishing articles critiquing

Page 58

the UN’s actions in Libya were The Center for Research on Globalization,

Voltaire Network, Libya 360, Mathaba, April Media, and American

Everyman.

During this period, several of the independent journalists or the

journalists writing articles challenging the Security Council actions

providing for the bombing of Libya appeared on satellite news programs

like that of RT News and PressTV. Also there were interviews and videos

posted online.

While these articles, discussions, critiques and analyses did not

succeed in stopping the NATO attack on Libya, they created an example

of more accurate reporting and analysis about the attack on Libya. A few

months later when an Al Jazeera journalist explained why he resigned

from Al Jazeera, he pointed to the pressure from Al Jazeera to misrepre-

sent what was happening in his reporting. He explained that the support of

Qatar for the militarization of the Libyan conflict was a turning point in

the distortion of the news at his station.

Also as the following comment by a netizen indicates, someone who

supported the attack on Libya and who has learned lessons from what

happened, is more likely to question the media claims about Syria:

(I)t is also important to me that I feel I was deceived about the

Libyan situation. Being like Libya would itself be reason to

oppose intervention in Syria.

And others suggest that the experience of NATO’s actions in Libya

has been having an impact on what some at the UN and some of the

nations of the UN will do with respect to Syria.

As one netizen wrote after hearing of the Houla massacre:

What has changed in the last week following the murder of

more than 100 people in Houla, including dozens of children,

is that a new urgency and disgust has been injected into an

escalating crisis that has brought the country to the verge of

civil war. The role of the Syrian opposition should also be

clearly investigated as well. Rather than just blaming Assad in

a media witch-hunt. As many of those killed were supposed to

be people who refused to collaborate with the opposition.

It is obvious that the Russians and Chinese have learnt from

Page 59

Libya too. Where the number of people killed by unbridled

NATO bombing has been carefully suppressed, and the use of

the UN to cover « regime change », has only bought chaos in

its wake. So the oil there has changed hands, but most of the

north of Africa is now transformed into a violent marasme.

Both of those major powers now know from experience that –

NATO with UN agreement means the destruction of peace, the

loss of their assets in the region, and the continuation of war

into other areas (Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, etc. or closer to their

own spheres of influence. China sea – the ‘Stans,’ the southern

(Muslim) aligned ex-Russian states, etc. or into South Amer-

ica). They do not see any end. So they must draw a line some-

where.

Is the object of the west once again to cause a major mid-

eastern war? shaun 2 June 2012, 10:00 p.m.

IV. The Syrian Crisis and the UN: Critique of the Reporting on Syria

Similar to the mainstream media war against Libya, there is a set of

false narratives in the mainstream western and Arab satellite media related

to what has been happening in Syria. While such media essentially frames

its news about Syria to demonize the Syrian government and its President

Bashar Assad, its news stories support the armed opposition, and its

journalists rely on opposition sources for the news that is to be reported.

In this situation, netizen journalism presents a critique of the

mainstream media support for what is an armed insurrection against Syria.

The forms this netizen journalism takes include articles, interviews, com-

mentary, historical background, analysis and discussion. Critical articles

about the mainstream media reports and misrepresentations are also

common.

The Houla Massacre

The original mainstream media account of what has come to be

known as the Houla massacre was that an opposition demonstration was

suppressed by Syrian government shelling.

Page 60

Criticism of this claim soon emerged pointing to the fact that the

majority of those murdered were killed at close range, not by shelling. In

response the mainstream western media produced a new element, a so

called pro government militia that they claimed had gone into the homes

of those killed and carried out the massacre. Why an alleged pro govern-

ment militia, the so called ‘Shabiha’ would go into the homes of pro

government supporters and massacre them, was not explained.

When Alex Thomson, a British Channel 4 reporter, went to the

village that the opposition in Houla had said had produced the so called

Shabiha accused of the attack in Houla, he found no evidence of any such

militia. He writes, “Beyond a few languid soldiers and the odd policeman

no sign of militias. No trace of heavy weapons. No tank tracks on the

roads…. Well these Alawites insist there are not, nor have ever been,

Shabiha in these villages.”

Neither do the mainstream western media

wonder why the Syrian government would carry out a massacre of

civilians at the very time that the United Nations General Assembly and

the United Nations Security Council are planning to discuss Syria.

In his book Liar’s Poker which analyzes the disinformation used to

justify the NATO bombing of Serbia, the Belgian journalist Michel Collon

observes that “Information is already a battlefield which is part of war.”

Seeking Facts About the Houla Massacre

Shortly after the news spread about the Houla massacre, netizen

media sites included articles which revealed that the area where the

massacre was carried out was under the control of the Free Syrian Army,

not of the Syrian government. A Russian news team had gained access to

the site the day following the massacre and did interviews to determine

what had happened. Their report was originally published in Russia but

soon was translated into English.

Their account noted that Houla is an administrative area, made up of

three villages. It is not the name of a town. Some of this area had been

under control of armed insurgents for a number of weeks. The Syrian army

maintained certain checkpoints. The Russian journalists’ account explains

that on the evening of May 24, the Free Syrian Army launched an

operation to take control of the checkpoints, bringing 600-800 armed

Page 61

insurgents from different areas.

At the same time that there was the fight over the checkpoints,

several armed insurgents went into certain homes and massacred the

members of several families. Among the families targeted was a family

related to a recently elected People’s Assembly representative. This family

and another family that were killed were said to be families that supported

the Syrian government. “Other victims included the family of two

journalists for Top News and New Orient Express, press agencies

associated with Voltaire Network,” reports the news and analysis site

Voltairenet.

Soon after the news of the massacre appeared, there were articles

challenging the claims that it was the work of the Syrian government. In

his article “Death Squads Ravage Syrian Town – West Calls for ‘Action,’

Tony Cartalucci of the Land Destroyer Report blog, writes “‘Cui Bono?’

To whose benefit does it serve to massacre very publicly entire families

in close quarters and broadcast the images of their handiwork world-

wide?”

He argues that this is in no way in the Syrian government’s

interest.

In another article he points to a U.K. government official blaming

the deaths on “artillery fire” by the government. Claiming to be respond-

ing to such reports, several governments including the U.K. government

expelled Syrian diplomats. Even though these claims were soon demon-

strated to be false, Carlucci points out that there was no retraction from the

U.K. government or reversal of the expulsion of Syrian diplomats.

Cartalucci writes:

U.K. Foreign Office Minister, Alistair Burt, peddling what is

now a confirmed fabrication, told for days to the public as the

West maneuvered to leverage it against the Syrian government.

The UN has now confirmed that artillery fired by government

troops were not responsible for the massacre, and instead

carried out by unidentified militants. Despite this, the U.K. has

failed to retract earlier accusations and has instead expelled

Syrian diplomats in an increasingly dangerous, irrational,

aggressive posture.

Others online recognized that a photo BBC posted which was

Page 62

allegedly of the corpses from the Houla Massacre, was actually a photo

that had been taken in 2003 of deaths in Iraq. Describing how the misrep-

resentation was detected, Sy Walker explains on his blog:

The information on which it’s based comes from a pro-Syrian

tweeter called Hey Joud, whom I’ve found to be well informed

and savvy.

A friend of this tweeter discovered the misrepresentation and

tweeted about it:

“@BBCWorld propaganda: http://imageshack.us/photo

/my-image … showing a pic of bodies from Iraq claiming it’s

the ?#HoulaMassacre? ?#Syria?

BBC changed the photo, Walker explains, adding:

This is not the first time I’ve reported on image fakery with

regard to Syria. The western media’s sustained attack on that

beleaguered nation has now been underway for more than a

year. A comprehensive account of all its deceptions and

misreporting over that period would fill many volumes.

In a blog post titled “Houla Hoax,” Mathias Broeckers also

comments on the BBC presenting the 2003 Iraq photo as a photo of Houla.

Broeckers writes:

It is the forbidden geopolitical agenda, the big Picture that isn’t

talked about, as opposed to the horrors by which the wars are

legitimized.

Other online journalists comment on the bias of the United Nations

Human Rights Council and its inability to do an objective investigation of

the facts of the Houla Massacre. Reporting about an interaction between

an anti-war activist from the “No War Network,” Marinella Corregia, and

Rupert Colville, spokesman for the Human Rights Council, an article on

the Uprooted Palestinians blog is titled “UN report on Houla massacre?

But they only talk to Syrian opposition – by phone.” Colville explains to

Corregia that the Human Rights Council will do its investigation by

speaking with the local network of opposition members they have contact

with in Syria by phone, with opposition members they have met in Turkey

and with opposition members they have met in Geneva.

Martin Janssen,

a Dutch Middle East expert and journalist who reports from Damascus and

Page 63

whose articles appear online is also concerned that there are other

important sources of information that have information about what

happened, but that the Human Relations Council investigators will not

speak with them because the investigators are only interested in hearing

from opposition sources.

Janssen said that he was in contact with a Catholic organization in

the area of Houla, a monastery in Qara in the Homs-Hana region, and the

two Russian journalists, Marat Musin and Olga Kulygina, who were able

to visit Houla the day after the massacre, on May 25 with a TV crew.

Jenssen reported that Musin and Kulygina tried to offer their findings to

the UN Special Commission on Human Rights doing the investigation, but

that the Commission was not interested in hearing from them. Colville

indicated that the sources the investigators had were adequate because all

their other sources had already informed them that the ‘shabibha’ were

responsible for the massacre. The Commission was not interested in

hearing from anyone with different views or with information different

from that given to them by the opposition.

The online discussion in response to Janssen’s article was a serious

discussion critiquing the mainstream media and putting forward the

criteria of what a media should do. The discussion is an important one as

it sets out both the failings of the current mainstream media and the

needed objectives for a more competent media.

Netizen Journalism Coverage of Houla Massacre

Along with the account of what happened in the al Houla region,

were articles proposing a broader perspective. This included historical

background describing where the U.S. and NATO utilized death squads

in prior conflicts. One article “Syria Under Attack by Globalist Death

Squads,” by Bramdon Turbeville presents background on how certain U.S.

officials including Robert S. Ford, the former U.S. Ambassador to Syria,

and John Negroponte who was U.S. Ambassador to Honduras in 1981-

1985 and later in Iraq, supported death squads first in Nicaragua (known

as the “Salvador Option”) and later in Iraq.

Turbeville’s article and

articles by others like the article titled, “The Salvadorian Option for Syria:

US-NATO Sponsored Death Squads Integrate ‘Opposition Forces” by

Page 64

Michel Chossudovsky, put the death squads functioning in Syria in this

historical context.

Along with the articles I am describing that are available in English,

there are also a wide range of similar articles online in French, German,

and other languages. There are also online discussions and comments

about the Syria conflict. A collection of articles, “The Houla Massacre:

The Disinformation Campaign,” available at Global Research website,

lists a number of the articles published on the media war over the Syrian

conflict.

There are various forms of online discussions. One such

discussion on an online forum was initiated with the post, “Houla

Massacre, Syria: What If?” The discussion considered whether the Syrian

government claims that it was not responsible for the massacre was or

wasn’t a lie. Online sources referred to in discussions like this could be

either mainstream media or alternative media sources. Through discussion,

referring to various articles and details, netizens in this online forum

concluded that armed insurgents were to blame, not the Syrian govern-

ment.

The Media and Syrian Sovereignty

Since it is rare at the current time that the mainstream western media

deviates from a hostility toward the Syrian government and a sympathy

with the armed insurgents, it seems significant that in Germany one of the

mainstream national newspapers, the Frankfurter Allgmeine Zeitung has

printed a significant story documenting the role of the Free Syrian Army

in the Houla massacre. The journalist, Rainer Hermann, speaks Arabic. He

has been reporting from the Middle East for over 22 years and he did his

thesis on modern Syrian social history. His article “Abermals Massaker in

Syrien” appeared in the Frankfurter Allgmeine Zeitung on June 7.

His article had been welcomed by many netizens and was reprinted

at various online news sites. Several online sites featured the article and

offered an English translation of it. The story collaborated the report of the

Russian journalists that the Free Syrian Army insurgents were behind the

Houla massacre.

Similarly there was an anonymous criticism of Rainer’s article on the

Houla massacre from opposition forces, and Rainer wrote a second article

Page 65

“The Extermination” responding to the criticism.

His article appears to

be in response to sources who are troubled over the attacks and discrimi-

nation that the armed insurgents have been introducing into the Syrian

struggle, but it is perhaps also an indication that netizen journalism is

having some effect in the current media war over Syria.

Similarly, there was a report by the British media criticism site,

Media Lens on the low key recognition by a BBC journalist that it is not

adequate to blame the Houla massacre on Syria’s President Assad, as

several of the media was doing, without more knowledge of what actually

happened, and with an approach which includes more shades of gray

rather than just treating it as a stark black or white issue.

Netizen Journalism and the UN

After the Houla massacre, the Syrian conflict, some say, appeared to

be at a turning point. Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had an

article arguing that there are lessons that have been learnt from what

happened with Libya and that the UN has to take into account these

lessons. In his op-ed, “Oh the Rights Side of History,” Lavrov writes:

When deciding to support UN Security Council Resolution

1970 and making no objection to Resolution 1973 on Libya,

we believed that these decisions would help limit the excessive

use of force and pave the way for a political settlement.

Unfortunately, the actions undertaken by NATO countries

under these resolutions led to their grave violation and support

for one of the parties to the civil war, with the goal of ousting

the existing regime – damaging in the process the authority of

the Security Council … .

It is clear that after what had happened in Libya it was impos-

sible to go along with the UN Security Council taking deci-

sions that would not be adequately explicit and would allow

those responsible for their implementation to act at their own

discretion. Any mandate given on behalf of the entire inter-

national community should be as clear and precise as possible

in order to avoid ambiguity. It is therefore important to under-

stand what is really happening in Syria and how to help that

Page 66

country to pass though this painful stage of its history.

Along with such comments from diplomats, netizens covered and

discussed what the UN was doing about the Syrian conflict. A summary

by Moon of Alabama of the General Assembly meeting discussing the

Houla Massacre described how the UN Secretary General, the Secretary

General of the League of Arab States and other officials, along with many

of the representatives of the nations at the UN, blamed the massacre on the

Syrian government, even though there were few facts available as to what

had happened and who was behind the events.

Though rarely mentioned

in the mainstream media, there were comments by the ambassadors of

several member states including the Syrian Ambassador and the Ambassa-

dor of the Russian Federation, those of Venezuela, of Nicaragua, and a

few others calling for an investigation, into the details of the massacre,

before making any rush to judgment.

Conclusion: Channels of Communication for International

Relations

In the Libyan and Syrian conflicts, the misrepresentations by the

mainstream western media and Arab satellite media have seemed difficult

to counter effectively. In the Cheonan situation, the misrepresentations

were effectively countered both internally and on an international level.

In his presentation to journalists at the press conference marking the start

of China’s presidency of the UN Security Council in March 2011, China’s

Ambassador to the UN, Li Baodong, recognized the impact of the

international media on the work of the Security Council. He went so far

as to refer to the international media as the “16

member of the Security

Council.”

The Cheonan conflict is one where the international critique

of the South Korean Cheonan report was an encouragement to at least

some members of the Security Council, to act diplomatically to calm the

conflict. Similarly, the North Korean Ambassador held a rare press

conference and indicated that he found encouragement in the international

support for the critique. Along with the many online articles by netizens

critiquing the role of the South Korean government in the Cheonan

conflict, progressive media in South Korea covered the activities of those

challenging the Cheonan report and also reported on the Russian

Page 67

investigation of the problem. There were also articles in the Chinese media

and the Russian media that critiqued the South Korean efforts to blame the

breakup of the ship on North Korea.

The actions of the Security Council in the Libya and the Syria

conflicts show the serious nature of the problem Medvedev referred to in

his talk in March.

Looking at the problem it is important to analyze the nature of the

media manipulation and the means of responding to such distorted

information.

In his book The Nerves of Government Karl W. Deutsch writes that:

Men have long and often concerned themselves with the power

of governments, much as some observers try to assess the

muscle power of a horse or an athlete. Others have described

the laws and institutions of states, much as anatomists describe

the skeleton or organs of a body. This book concerns itself less

with the bones or muscles of the body politic than with its

nerves – its channels of communication and decision.

Deutsch goes on to explain that “it might be profitable to look upon

government somewhat less as a problem of power and somewhat more as

a problem of steering and communication.” He maintains that, “It is

communication, that is, the ability to transmit messages and to react to

them, that makes organizations … .” He proposes that this is true for the

cells in the human body as it is for the “organizations of thinking human

beings in social groups.”

The significance of this perspective is that distorted messages are the

basis for distorted social organization. A social organization that can make

an accurate assessment of the conditions on the ground in a conflict, is in

a position to analyze what is needed for a peaceful resolution of the

conflict.

There are a number of scholarly articles studying the impact of the

Internet on media and on communication among netizens. Some of the

more interesting articles focus on the communication channels created,

and the nature of not only the transmission of information, but also its

reception.

Deutsch makes a distinction between power and information. He

Page 68

writes that “Power, we might say, produces changes, information triggers

them in a suitable receiver.”

It is not the amount of what is transmitted

that is necessarily significant, but rather the nature of what it is, what the

receiver is, and the effect of the information on the receiver. Deutsch gives

the example of the relative weakness of the Nazi quisling government in

Norway at the end of WWII, and the relative strength of the resistance

because it had better channels of communication.

Joseph S. Nye in an article, “The Future of American Power,” argues

that information is indeed important in the battle for the U.S. to try to

maintain its power.

He writes that, “Conventional wisdom holds that the

state with the largest army prevails, but in the information age, the state

(or the nonstate actor) with the best story may sometime win.”

advises, “It is time for a new narrative about the future of U.S. power.”

But for him whether or not the story helps to obtain the desired goal is

important, not the truth or accuracy of the narrative.

At a program at the Japan Society in New York where Nye spoke

about his book The Future of Power, he was asked a question about his

view of U.S. actions in the NATO war against Libya. Nye responded that

what President Barack Obama had done with respect to the NATO war

against Libya was exactly right.

Obama had waited until he had the

needed narrative to justify the military action against Libya. It was impor-

tant, Nye explained, that the U.S. not be seen as once again attacking a

Muslim country as had happened with Iraq. Instead the Arab League and

the UN Security Council resolutions provided a narrative “of a legitimate

enforcement of humanitarian responsibility to protect civilians.” This

provided Obama with the ability to claim that the U.S. was taking

“collective responsibility,” not that the U.S. was undertaking a military

intervention.

The problem with Nye’s argument is that he is focusing on how the

world perceives the action he is taking, not on the actual nature of the

action itself.

But what happened in Libya was a military action to support an

armed insurgency against the Libyan government. The NATO bombing

of Libya was not for the protection of civilians, but for the protection of

an armed insurrection against the government and people of Libya.

Page 69

Similarly, when the UN Security Council passed UN Resolution

1973, many of the Ambassadors who spoke said the resolution was to

protect peaceful protesters in Libya. A few days later the Russian

Federation’s President Vladimir Putin, who was then the Prime Minister

of Russia, said that the “protection of civilians” was but a pretext by which

to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation.

Nye’s contention that a convincing narrative can gain support for

actions, fails to recognize the harm in lives lost and the devastation

wrought that results from the use of “convincing narratives” to justify

actions that are contrary to the obligations of the UN Charter and the

pursuit of the peaceful resolution of conflicts. Also such duplicity sullies

the image of the United Nations amongst peace loving people around the

world.

I have briefly surveyed research in English about Chinese netizens

and have found important scholarship developing in this field. Similarly,

there is scholarship in journalism which explores the relationship of

alternative journalism and citizenship. I want to propose that there is a

need for research in the field of international relations and communication

which explores the new forms of online media and discussion that are

developing, often across geographic borders. Those who took up the

struggle against the misinformation in the Cheonan case or against the

media attacks on Libya and Syria are pioneering this relatively new form

of alternative journalism, netizen journalism. Speaking about the potential

for such a journalism Michael Hauben, whose pioneering research on the

social impact of the Internet recognized the emergence of the netizens,

writes:

As people continue to connect to Usenet and other discussion

forums, the collective population will contribute back to the

human community this new form of news.

Hauben recognized that a new form of news was evolving which

would include both the contributions of netizens and the capabilities of the

Internet. Describing the frustration of many netizens with the traditional

media that they had to rely on before the Internet, Hauben wrote, “Today,

similarly, the need for a broader and more cooperative gathering and

reporting of the News has helped create the new online media that is

Page 70

gradually supplementing traditional forms of journalism.” What Hauben

realized is there was a symbiosis developing between the news, netizens

and the Internet. These were evolving into an interdependent partnership

which had become substantial. He wrote, “the collective body of people

assisted by (Usenet) software, has grown larger than any individual

newspaper … .”

There are many examples that have developed of netizens making

their contributions to the News and the Net.

One important example of this new media was the anti-cnn website

created in China in 2008.

The website was created in response to western

media distortions of the Tibet demonstrations and riots and the website

critiqued these distortions.

Netizens in South Korea and in various online sites around the world

took on to challenge the inaccuracies and serious problems in the South

Korean government investigation into the sinking of the Cheonan. Their

work had an effect at the UN. In 2011, there was an online critique by

netizens of the UN Security Council misrepresentation of the armed insur-

gency in Libya as peaceful demonstrators needing foreign military

intervention for protection. The UN can only benefit from such input. It

is still too soon to know whether netizens will be able to have a significant

impact on the UN in its handling of the crisis in Syria, but those defending

Syrian sovereignty have received support and encouragement from the

increasing spread of netizen journalism.

The significance of this new form of journalism is that there are

netizens who are dedicated to doing the research and analysis to determine

the interests and actions that are too often hidden from public view. By

revealing the actual forces at work, netizens are making it possible to have

a more accurate grasp of whose interests are being served and what is at

stake in the events that make up the news. If such a journalism can help to

provide the UN with a more accurate understanding of the conflicts it is

considering, it can help to make more likely the peaceful resolution of

these conflicts.

Notes

Page 71

1. “Conference Organized by the Russian Council for International Affairs,” 23 March

2012, Moscow.

http://eng.news.krem lin.ru /transcripts/3582

2. He refers to how Libya and Syria have been the victim of this politics. “How are we

to see the mantras repeated by particular countries that consider themselves the main

exporters of democracy if, say in the Libyan and now the Syrian cases, countries whose

internal political lives are governed by completely different norms are chosen as models

to follow for democratic development?”

3. “Questions Linger 100 Days after the Cheonan Sinking,” Hankyoreh, July 3 2010,

online at: http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/eng lishedition/enational/428715.html

4. Ronda Hauben, In Cheonan Dispute UN Security Council Acts in Accord with UN

Charter, Sept. 5, 2010

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2010/09/05/in_cheonan_dispute

_un_security_council_discovers_un_charter/

5. The article, “Heller mediacion de Mexico en conflict de Peninsula de Corea” by

Maurizio Guerrero, the UN Correspondent for Notimex (the Mexican News Agency), was

published in la Economia on July 5, 2010. http://enlaeconomia.com/news/2010/07/05

/69561 (No longer available.)

6. Security Council, S/2010/281, “Letter dated 4 June 2010”, https://undocs.org

/S/2010/281

7. Security Council, S/2010/294, June 8, 2010 Letter, https://www

.voltairenet.org/article166269.html (scroll down and look on the left).

8. Media Stakeout: Informal comments to the Media by the President of the Security

Council and the Permanent Representative of Mexico, H.E. Mr. Claude Heller on the

Cheonan incident (the sinking of the ship from the Republic of Korea) and on

Kyrgyzstan. [Webcast: Archived Video – 5 minutes] http://webcast.un.org/ram

gen/ondemand/stakeout/2010/so10 0614pm3.rm (No longer available.)

9. Video of North Korean Ambassador Press Conference http://

webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/pressconference/2010 /pc100615am.rm (No longer

available.)

10. UN Security Council, S/PRST/2010/13

https://www.security councilreport.org/un-

documents/document/NKorea-SPRST-2010-13.php

11. Lee Jae-hoon, “UN Condemns Attack on the Cheonan: Presidential Statement allows

for a ‘double interpretation,’ and does not blame or place consequences upon North

Korea,” Hankyoreh, July 10, 2010.

www.hani.co.kr/arti/englishedition/enational/429768.html

12. Ronda Hauben, “Netizens Question Cause of Cheonan Tragedy,” OhmyNews

International, June 8, 2010. Ronda Hauben, “Questioning Cheonan Investigation Stirs

Controversy,” OhmyNews International, June 29, 2010.

13. PSPD Report Sent to Security Council, 1,

https://www.peoplepower21.org/Peace

/584228 2, https://www.peoplepower21.org/En glish/40150 3, https://www.peoplepower

21.org/English/40157.

14. Yeran Kim, Irkwon Jeong, Hyoungkoo Khang and Bomi Kim, “Blogging as

‘Recoding’: A Case Study of the Discursive War Over the Sinking of the Cheonan,”

Page 72

Media International Australia, November 2011, No. 141, pp. 98-106.

15.

https://shadowproof.com/2010/06/15/the-sinking-of-the-cheonan-we-are-being-lied-

to/

16. From “PCC-772 Cheonan: South Korean Government Admits the Deception (and

then Lies about It),” June 30, 2010. (No longer available.)

17. The press conference was held on July 9, 2010 at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club

of Japan. The program was titled “Lee and Suh: Inconsistencies in the Cheonan Report.”

(See

https://arxiv .org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1006/1006.0680.pdf). See also, David Cyranoski,

“Controversy over South Korea’s Sunken Ship,” Nature, July 8, 2010, online at:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010 /100708/full/news.2010.343.html?s=news_rss

18. The Russian team proposed a different theory for how the Cheonan sank. They had

observed that the ship’s propeller had become entangled in a fishing net and subsequently

that a possible cause of the sinking could have been that the ship had hit the antennae of

a mine which then exploded. “Russian Navy Team’s Analysis of the Cheonan Incident,”

Posted on July 27, Hankyoreh, modified on July 29.

http://www.hani.co

.kr/arti/english_edition /e_northkorea/432230.html The Russian Experts document is

titled “Data from the Russian Naval Expert Group’s Investigation into the Cause of the

South Korean Naval Vessel Cheonan’s Sinking.” See also “Russia’s Cheonan

Investigation Suspects that Sinking Cheonan Ship was Caused by a Mine,” posted on July

27, 2010, Hankyoreh, modified on July 28, 2010.

http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english

_edition/e_northkorea/432232.html

19. Barbara Demick and John M. Glionna, “Doubts Surface on North Korean Role in

Ship Sinking”, Los Angeles Times, July 23, 2010.

https://www.latimes.com/archi

ves/la-xpm-2010-jul-23-la- fg-korea-torpedo-20100724-story.html

20. Donald P. Gregg, “Testing North Korean Waters,” New York Times, August 31, 2010.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/opi nion/01iht-edgregg.html

21. Records at the UN show that the practice of sending such correspondence to the

Security Council dates back to 1946. This is the date when the symbol S/NC/ was

introduced as the symbol for “Communications received from private individuals and

non-governmental bodies relating to matters of which the Security Council is seized.” The

Security Council has the practice of periodically publishing a list of the documents it

receives, the name and organization of the sender, and the date they are received. The

Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Council states that the list is to be

circulated to all representatives on the Security Council. A copy of any communication

on the list is to be given to any nation on the Security Council that requests it.

There are over 450 such lists indicated in the UN records. As each list can contain several

or a large number of documents the Security Council has received, the number of such

documents is likely to be in the thousands.

Under Rule 39 of the Council procedures, the Security Council may invite any person it

deems competent for the purpose to supply it with information on a given subject. Thus

the two procedures in the Security Council’s provisional rules give it the basis to find

assistance on issues it is considering from others outside the Council and to consider the

Page 73

contribution as part of its deliberation

22. Tae-ho Kwon,” South Korean Government Impeded Russian Team’s Cheonan

Investigation: Donald Gregg,” Hankyoreh, September 4, 2010.

http://english.hani.co.kr

/arti/englishedition/enorth korea/438299.html

23. See for example “PSPD’s Stance on the Presidential Statement of the UNSC

Regarding the Sinking of the ROK Naval Vessel Cheonan,”

https://www.people

power21.org/English/40247

24. http://ceinquiry.us/2011-08-22-acceptable-distortion-lieswar-libya (No longer

available.)

25. “Russia Today, ‘Airstrikes in Libya did not take place’ – Russian military,” March

1, 2011

http://www.rt.com/news/air strikes-libya-russian-military/

26. “Libya, the UN, and Netizen Journalism,” The Amateur Computerist, Winter 2012,

vol. 21 No. 1

http://www.ais.org/~jrh /acn/ACn21-1.pdf

27. Comments from discussion of article on “Comment Is Free” at the Guardian (U.K.),

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree /2011/mar/23/libya-ceasefire-consensus-russia-

china-india

28. http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2011/03/libya-whats-going-on /#comments

29. “An Open Letter to People’s of Africa and the World from Concerned Africans.”

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACn21-1.pdf, pp. 23-26.

30. “Abuse of UN Processes in Security Council Actions Against Libya,”

http://www

.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACn21-1.pdf, pp. 12-21.

31. See for example “What Does Gaddafi’s Fall Mean for Africa?”

http://www

.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACn21-1.pdf, pp. 26-27.

32. See Introduction, “Netizen Journalism and the Story of the Resistance to the NATO

Aggression Against Libya,”

http://www .ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACn21-1.pdf, pp. 1-2.

33. See for example: Ali Hashem, Interview at the Real News,

https://therealnews

.com/ahashempt10319

34. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012 /jun/02/syria-intervention-observer

35. Alex Thompson’s blog, Sunday June 3, 2012. http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-

thomsons-view/search-houla-killers/1811

36. Michel Collon, Liar’s Poker, International Action Center, New York, 2002, p. 45.

(This is an English translation. The book is originally published in French.)

37. Marat Musin, the Houla Massacre: Opposition Terrorists “Killed Families Loyal to

the Government,” Detailed Investigation, Global Research, June 1, 2012, ANNA NEWS

(Original Russian) and syrianews.cc,

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context

=va&aid=31184. See for example: Thierry Meyssan, “The Houla Affair Highlights

Western Intelligence Gap in Syria,” http://www.voltairenet.org/The-Houla-affair-

highlights. Investigators from Vesti24: Marat Musin, Olga Kulygina (Al-Houla, Syria)

38. May 26, 2012 “Death Squad’s Ravage Syrian Town – West Calls for Action,” May

27, 2012.

http://landdestroyer.blogspot .com/2012/05/death-squads-ravage-syrian-town-

Page 74

west.html

39. “West’s Houla Syria Narrative Crumbles Expels Syrian Diplomats Anyway,”

https://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/05 /wests-houla-syria-narrative-crumbles.html

40. “Houla Horror Truth Is Elusive Lies Are Easier to Spot,” https://mediawerk

groepsyrie.wordpress.com/2012/05/27/fake-bbc-pictures-about-houla-horror-truth-

is-elusive-lies-are-easier-to-spot/

41. Mathias Broeckers, “Der Hula-Hoax,” http://www.broeckers .com/2012/06/05/der-

hula-hoax/ (in German)

42. “UN Commissioner report on Houla? But they only talk to Syrian opposition – by

phone,”

http://www.rt.com/news/houla-massacre-un-syria-635/

43. June 2, 2012, The Horrors of Houla (The blog is in Dutch De verschrikkingen van

H o u l a ) h t t p s : / / m e d i a we r k g r o e p s y r i e . w o r d p r e s s . c o m / 2 0 1 2 / 0 6 / 1 0

/de-verschrikkingen-van-houla/

44. Bramdon Turbeville, “Syria under Attack by Globalist Death Squads,” May 27, 2012,

Syria360 blog, https://newsghana.com.gh/syria-under-attack-by-globalist-death-

squad-experts/. “The Salvador Option for Syria”: U.S.-NATO Sponsored Death Squads

Integrate “Opposition Forces” – by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2012-05-28,

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context =va&aid =31359

45. The collection of articles, “The Houla Massacre: The Disinformation Campaign,” at

Global Research, http://www.global research.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31399

46. Forum with discussion, Houla Massacre, Syria: What If? http://forums.randi.org

/showthread.php?t=237195

47. “Abermals Massaker in Syrien” Frankfurter Allgmeine Zeitung, June 7, 2012, partial

English translation in “Prime German Paper: Syrian Rebels Committed Houla Massacre,”

Moon of Alabama, 6-9-2012,

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2012/06/prime-german-

paper-syrian-rebels-committed-houla- massacre.html

Another article appears on the National Review website, June 9, 2012 by John Rosenthal,

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/302261/report-rebels-responsible-

houla-massacre-john-rosenthal#

48. “New FAZ Piece On Houla Massacre: ‘The Extermination,’” Moon of Alabama, June

15, 2012,

http://wwwmoonofalabama.org/2012/06/new-faz-piece-on-houla-massacre-the-

extermin ation.html

49. Lavrov, “On the Right Side of History,” https://www.voltairenet.org/article1

74662.html

“When deciding to support UN Security Council Resolution 1970 and making no

objection to Resolution 1973 on Libya, we believed that these decisions would help limit

the excessive use of force and pave the way for a political settlement. Unfortunately, the

actions undertaken by NATO countries under these resolutions led to their grave violation

and support for one of the parties to the civil war, with the goal of ousting the existing

regime – damaging in the process the authority of the Security Council … .

It is clear that after what had happened in Libya it was impossible to go along with the

Page 75

UN Security Council taking decisions that would not be adequately explicit and would

allow those responsible for their implementation to act at their own discretion. Any

mandate given on behalf of the entire international community should be as clear and

precise as possible in order to avoid ambiguity. It is therefore important to understand

what is really happening in Syria and how to help that country to pass though this painful

stage of its history.”

50. See for example the summary by Moon of Alabama,

http://www.moonofalabama

.org/2012/06/the-syria-discussion-at-the-un-general-assembly.html See also “The UN and

the Houla Massacre: The Information battlefield”

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2012/06

/12/un-and-houla-massacre/

51. See “The UN and the Houla Massacre: The Information Battlefield.” http://blogs.taz

.de/netizenblog/2012/06/12/un-and-houla-ma ssacre/

52. Ronda Hauben, “International Media ‘the 16

Member of the Security Council,’”

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2011/03/15/me dia_and_security_council/

53. Karl Deutsch, Nerves of Government, The Free Press, New York, 1966, p. xxvii.

54. Ibid., p.77.

55. Ibid., p. 146.

56. Ibid., p. 153.

57. Foreign Affairs, Nov/Dec 2010 Vol. 89, Issue 6, pp. 2-12.

58. Ibid., p. 2.

59. Ibid., p.10.

60. Ronda Hauben, “On Libya, Soft Power, and the Protection of Civilians as Pretext,”

Global Time, April 18, 2011.

61. Ronda Hauben, UN Security Council March 17 Meeting to Authorize Bombing of

Libya all Smoke and Mirrors.

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2011/03/30/un_march_17

_meeting_res1973/

Pavel Felgenhauer, “Putin and Medvedev Lead Opposing Coalitions in the Russian Elite,”

Eurasia Daily Monitor, March 26, 2011, https://jamestown.org/program/putin-and-

medvedev-lead-op posing-coalitions-in-the-russian-elite/

62. Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben, Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet

and the Internet, Los Alamitos, CA, IEEE Computer Society Press, 1997, Chapter 13, p.

233. See also the Preface, and Chapter 1.

63. See for example, Ronda Hauben, “Netizens Defy Western Media Fictions of China,”

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACn20-2 .pdf, pp. 7-9.

*This article appears in the Amateur Computerist Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 17-32.

Page 76

[Editor’s Note: A version of the following article appeared in Rhetoric and

Communications E-journal, Issue 27, March 2017. That journal can be

seen online at: http://journal.rhetoric.bg/.]

Considerations on the

Significance of the Net

and the Netizens*

by Ronda Hauben

Topics: netizens, communication processes, communication channels, citizen

empowerment, models for democracy, nerves of government, social impact

Abstract

The book Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet

celebrates in 2017 the 20

anniversary of its publication in English and Japanese editions

in 1997. The book documents how along with the development of the Internet came the

emergence of a new form of citizen – the netizen. In his pioneering online research in the

early 1990s Michael Hauben gathered data and did analysis demonstrating that not only

the Internet but also the netizen would have an important impact on society. This article

explores Hauben’s research recognizing that netizens are a new social force. The article

also looks at other contributions which help to provide a conceptual framework to

understand this new social force. Media theorist Mark Poster’s work about netizens is

discussed, as is Karl Deutsch’s theoretical understanding of the role of communication

in creating a new model for good government. But it is the candlelight revolution by

citizens and netizens in 2016-2017 in South Korea which demonstrates in practice the

importance of the netizen forging a new governance model for participatory democracy.

Key Words: netizens, communications, empowerment, impact, citizen,

watchdog, democracy

Introduction

With the introduction of the Internet, the question has been raised as

to what its impact will be on society. One significant result of the impact

already is the emergence of the netizen. Michael Hauben’s work in the

1990s recognized the significant impact not only of the development of the

Page 77

Internet but also of the role of the netizen in forging new social and

political forms and processes.

While the role of netizens in working for social change has been

documented around the world, the role of netizens in working for social

and political change has been an especially important aspect of South

Korean experience for nearly the past two decades. Most recently,

however, widespread political and economic corruption at the highest

levels of the South Korean society has led citizens and netizens to take

part in peaceful but massive candlelight demonstrations advocating the

need for fundamental change in the political and economic structures of

South Korean society. The question has been raised whether there are

models for such change. In such an environment there is a need to

consider the importance of the Internet and of the Netizen in helping to

forge the new forms for grassroots participation in the governing

structures of society. At such a time it seems appropriate to consider the

conceptual framework for the role of the netizen in contributing to a new

governing model for society

These developments in South Korea come at a time when the book

Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet celebrates

the 20

anniversary since its publication in 1997, making a review of the

significant contribution of the book particularly relevant to the events of

our time.

Looking Back

Twenty years ago in May 1997, the print edition of Netizens: On the

History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet was published in English.

Later that year, in October, a Japanese translation of the book was

published. In 2017, we are celebrating the occasion of the 20

Anniversary

of these publications.

In honor of this occasion I want to both look back and forward

toward trying to assess the significance of the book and of Michael

Hauben’s discovery of the emergence of the netizen. I want to begin to

consider what has happened in these 20 years toward trying to understand

the nature of this advance and the developments the advance makes pos-

sible.

Page 78

By the early 1990s, Hauben recognized that the Internet was a

significant new development and that it would have an impact on our

world. He was curious about what that impact would be and what could

help it to be a beneficial impact. He had raised a series of questions about

the online experience. He received responses to these questions from a

number of people. Reading and analyzing the responses he explained:

There are people online who actively contribute to the devel-

opment of the Net. These people understand the value of

collective work and the communal aspects of public communi-

cations. These are the people who discuss and debate topics in

a constructive manner, who e-mail answers to people and

provide help to newcomers, who maintain FAQ files and other

public information repositories, who maintain mailing lists,

and so on. These are the people who discuss the nature and

role of this new communications medium. These are the

people who as citizens of the Net I realized were Netizens.

The book was compiled from a series of articles written by Hauben

and his co-author Ronda Hauben which were posted on the Net as they

were written and which sometimes led to substantial comments and

discussion.

The most important article in the book was Hauben’s article, “The

Net and Netizens: The Impact the Net Has on People’s Lives.” Hauben

opened the article with the prophetic words, which appeared online first

in 1993:

Welcome to the 21

Century. You are a Netizen (a Net

Citizen) and you exist as a citizen of the world thanks to the

global connectivity that the Net makes possible. You consider

everyone as your compatriot. You physically live in one

country but you are in contact with much of the world via the

global computer network. Virtually, you live next door to

every other single Netizen in the world. Geographical separa-

tion is replaced by existence in the same virtual space.

Hauben goes on to explain that what he is predicting is not yet the

reality. In fact, many people around the world were just becoming

connected to the Internet during the period in which these words were

Page 79

written and posted on various different networks that existed at the time.

But now twenty years after the publication of the print edition of

Netizens, this description is very much the reality for our time and for

many it is hard to remember or understand the world without the Net.

Similarly, in his articles that are collected in the Netizens book,

Hauben looked at the pioneering vision that gave birth to the Internet. He

looked at the role of computer science in the building of the earlier

network called the ARPANET, at the potential impact that the Net and

Netizen would have on politics, on journalism, and on the revolution in

ideas that the Net and Netizen would bring about, comparing this to the

advance brought about by the printing press. The last chapter of the book

is an article Hauben wrote early on about the need for a watchdog function

over government in order to make democracy possible.

By the time the book was published in a print edition, it had been

freely available online for three years. This was a period when the U.S.

government was determined to change the nature of the Net from the

public and scientific infrastructure that had been built with public and

educational funding around the world to a commercially driven entity.

While there were people online at the time promoting the privatization and

commercialization of the Internet, the concept of netizen was embraced by

others, many of whom supported the public and collaborative nature of the

Internet and who wanted this aspect to grow and flourish.

The article “The Net and Netizens” grew out of a research project

that Hauben had done for a class at Columbia University in Computer

Ethics. Hauben was interested in the impact of the Net and so he formu-

lated several questions and sent them out online. This was a pioneering

project at the time and the results he got back helped to establish the fact

that already in 1993 the Net was having a profound impact on the lives of

a number of people.

Hauben put together the results of his research in the article “The Net

and Netizens” and posted it online. This helped the concept of netizen to

spread and to be embraced around the world. The netizen, it is important

to clarify, was not intended to describe every net user. Rather netizen was

the conceptualization of those on the Net who took up to support the

public and collaborative nature of the Net and to help it to grow and

Page 80

flourish. Netizens at the time often had the hope that their efforts online

would be helpful toward creating a better world.

Hauben described this experience in a speech he gave at a conference

in Japan. Subsequently in 1997, his description became the preface to the

Netizens book, Hauben explained:

In conducting research five years ago online to determine

people’s uses of the global computer communications network,

I became aware that there was a new social institution, an elec-

tronic commons, developing. It was exciting to explore this

new social institution. Others online shared this excitement. I

discovered from those who wrote me that the people I was

writing about were citizens of the Net or Netizens.

Hauben’s work which is included in the book and the subsequent

work he did recognized the advance made possible by the Internet and the

emergence of the Netizen.

The book is not only about what is wrong with the old politics, or

media, but more importantly, the implications for the emergence of new

developments, of a new politics, of a new form of citizenship, and of what

Hauben called the “poor man’s version of the mass media.” He focused on

what was new or emerging and recognized the promise for the future

represented by what was only at the time in an early stage of development.

For example, Hauben recognized that the collaborative contributions

for a new media would far exceed what the old media had achieved. “As

people continue to connect to Usenet and other discussion forums,” he

wrote, “the collective population will contribute back to the human

community this new form of news.”

In order to consider the impact of Hauben’s work and of the

publication of the book, both in its online form and in the print edition, I

want to look at some of the implications of what has been written since

about netizens.

Mark Poster on the Implications of the Concept of Netizen

One interesting example is in a book on the impact of the Internet

and globalization by Mark Poster, a media theorist. The book’s title is

Page 81

Information Please. The book was published in 2006. While Poster does

not make any explicit reference to the book Netizens he finds the concept

of the netizen that he has seen used online to be an important one. He

offers some theoretical discussion on the use of the “netizen” concept.

Referring to the concept of citizen, Poster is interested in the

relationship of the citizen to government, and in the empowering of the

citizen to be able to affect the actions of one’s government. He considers

the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen as a monument from

the French Revolution of 1789. He explains that the idea of the Rights of

Man was one effort to empower people to deal with governments. But this

was not adequate, though the concept of the rights of the citizen, he

recognizes, was an important democratic milestone.

“Human rights and citizenship,” he writes, “are tied together and

reinforce each other in the battle against the ruling classes.”

He proposes

that “these rights are ensured by their inscription in constitutions that

found governments and they persist in their association with those

governments as the ground of political authority.”

But with the coming of what he calls the age of globalization, Poster

wonders if the concept “citizen” can continue to signify democracy. He

wonders if the concept is up to the task.

“The conditions of globalization and networked media,” he writes,

“present a new register in which the human is recast and along with it the

citizen.”

“The deepening of globalization processes strips the citizen of

power,” he writes. “As economic processes become globalized, the nation-

state loses its ability to protect its population. The citizen thereby loses her

ability to elect leaders who effectively pursue her interests.”

In this situation, “the figure of the citizen is placed in a defensive

position.”

To succeed in the struggle against globalization he recognizes

that there is a need to find instead of a defensive position, an offensive

one.

Also he is interested in the media and its role in this new paradigm.

“We need to examine the role of the media in globalizing practices that

construct new subjects,” Poster writes. “We need especially to examine

those media that cross national boundaries and to inquire if they form or

may form the basis for a new set of political relations.”

Page 82

In this context, for the new media, “the important questions, rather,

are these:” he proposes, “Can the new media promote the construction of

new political forms not tied to historical, territorial powers? What are the

characteristics of new media that promote new political relations and new

political subjects? How can these be furthered or enhanced by political

action?”

“In contrast to the citizen of the nation,” Poster notices, “the name

often given to the political subject constituted on the Net is ‘netizen’.”

While Poster makes it seem that the consciousness among some online of

themselves as “netizens” just appeared online spontaneously, this is not

accurate.

Before Hauben’s work, netizen as a concept was rarely if ever

referred to. The paper “The Net and Netizens” introduced and developed

the concept of “netizen.” This paper was widely circulated online.

Gradually the use of the concept of netizen became increasingly common.

Hauben’s work was a process of doing research online, summarizing the

research, analyzing it while welcoming online comments at various stages

of the process and then putting the research back online, and of people

embracing it. This was the process by which the foundation for the

concept of “netizen” was interactively established.

Considering this background, the observations that Poster makes of

how the concept of “netizen” is used online represents a recognition of the

significant role for the netizen in the future development of the body

politic. “The netizen,” Poster writes, “might be the formative figure in a

new kind of political relation, one that shares allegiance to the nation with

allegiance to the Net and to the planetary political spaces it inaugurates.”

This new phenomena, Poster concludes, “will likely change the

relation of forces around the globe. In such an eventuality, the figure of the

netizen might serve as a critical concept in the politics of democratiza-

tion.”

The Era of the Netizen

Poster characterizes the current times as the age of globalization. I

want to offer a different view, the view that we are in an era demarcated

by the creation of the Internet and the emergence of the netizen. Therefore,

Page 83

a more accurate characterization of this period is as the “Era of the

Netizen.”

The years since the publication of the book Netizens have been

marked by many interesting developments that have been made possible

by the growth and development of the Internet and the spread of netizens

around the world. I will refer to a few examples to give a flavor of the kind

of developments I am referring to.

An article by Vinay Kamat in the Reader’s Opinion section of the

Times of India referred to something I had written. Quoting the article

“The Rise of Netizen Democracy,” the Times of India article said, “Not

only is the Internet a laboratory for democracy, but the scale of partic-

ipation and contribution is unprecedented. Online discussion makes it

possible for netizens to become active individuals and group actors in

social and public affairs. The Internet makes it possible for netizens to

speak out independently of institutions or officials.”

Kamat points to the growing number of netizens in China and India

and the large proportion of the population in South Korea who are

connected to the Internet. “Will it evolve into a fifth estate?” Kamat asks,

contrasting netizens’ discussion online with the power of the 4th estate,

i.e. the mainstream media.

“Will social and political discussion in social media grow into

deliberation?” asks Kamat. “Will opinions expressed be merely ‘rabble

rousing’ or will they be ‘reflective’ instead of ‘impulsive’?”

One must recognize, Kamat explains, the new situation online and

the fact that it is important to understand the nature of this new media and

not merely look at it through the lens of the old media. What is the nature

of this new media and how does it differ from the old? This is an

important area for further research and discussion.

Looking for a Model

When visiting South Korea in 2008, I was asked by a colleague if

there is a model for democracy that could be helpful for South Korea – a

model implemented in some country, perhaps in Scandinavia. Thinking

about the question I realized it was more complex than it seemed on the

Page 84

surface.

I realized that one cannot just take a model from the period before

the Internet, from before the emergence of the netizen. It is instead

necessary that models for a more democratic society or nation, in our

times, be models that include netizen participation in the society. Both

South Korea and China are places where the role not only of citizens but

also of netizens is important in building more democratic structures for the

society. South Korea appears to be the most advanced in grassroots efforts

to create examples of netizen forms for a more participatory government

decision making process.

But China is also a place where there are

significant developments because of the Internet and netizens.

In China there have been a large number of issues that netizens have

taken up online which have then had an impact on the mainstream media

and where the online discussion has helped to bring about a change in

government policy.

In looking for other models to learn from, however, I also realized

that there is another relevant area of development. This is the actual

process of building the Net, a prototype which is helpful to consider when

seeking to understand the nature and particularity of the evolving new

models for development and participation represented in the Era of the

Netizen.

In particular, I want to point to a paper by the research scientist who

many computer and networking pioneers credit with providing the vision

to inspire the scientific work to create the Internet. This scientist is JCR

Licklider, an experimental psychologist who was particularly interested

in the processes of the brain and in communication research.

In a paper Licklider wrote with another psychologist, Robert Taylor,

in 1968 a vision was set out to guide the development of the Internet. The

title of the paper was “The Computer as a Communication Device.”

The

paper proposed that essential to the processes of communication is the

creation and sharing of models. That the human mind is adept at creating

models, but that the models created in a single mind are not helpful in

themselves. Instead it is critical that models be shared and a process of

cooperative modeling be developed in order to be able to create something

that many people will respect.

Page 85

Nerves of Government

In his article comparing the impact of the Net with the important

impact the printing press had on society, Hauben wrote, “The Net has

opened a channel for talking to the whole world to an even wider set of

people than did printed books.”

I want to focus a bit on the significance

of this characteristic, on the notion that the Net has opened a communica-

tion channel available to a wide set of people.

In order to have a conceptual framework to understand the impor-

tance of this characteristic, I recommend the book by Karl Deutsch titled,

The Nerves of Government. In the preface to this book, Deutsch writes:

This book suggests that it might be preferable to look upon

government somewhat less as a problem of power and some-

what more as a problem of steering; and it tries to show that

steering is decisively a matter of communication.

To look at the question of government not as a problem of power,

but as one of steering, of communication, I want to propose is a fundamen-

tal paradigm shift.

What is the difference?

Political power has to do with the ability to exert force on something

so as to affect its direction and action. Steering and communication,

however, are related to the process of the transmission of a signal through

a channel. The communication process is one related to whether a signal

is transmitted in a manner that distorts the signal or whether it is possible

to transmit the signal accurately. The communication process and the

steering that it makes possible through feedback mechanisms are an

underlying framework to consider in seeking to understand what Deutsch

calls the “Nerves of Government.”

According to Deutsch, a nation can be looked at as a self-steering

communication system of a certain kind and the messages that are used to

steer it are transmitted via certain channels.

Some of the important challenges of our times relate to the exposure

of the distortions of the information being spread. For example, the mis-

Page 86

representations by the mainstream media about what happened in Libya

in 2011 or what has been happening in Syria since 2011.

The creation

and dissemination of channels of communication that make possible “the

essential two-way flow of information” are essential for the functioning

of an autonomous learning organization, which is the form Deutsch

proposes for a well-functioning system.

To look at this phenomenon in a more practical way, I want to offer

some considerations raised in a speech given to honor a Philippine

librarian, a speech given by Zosio Lee. Lee refers to the kind of informa-

tion that is transmitted as essential to the well being of a society. In

considering the impact of netizens and the form of information that is

being transmitted, Lee asks the question, “How do we detect if we are

being manipulated or deceived?”

The importance of this question, he explains, is that, “We would not

have survived for so long if all the information we needed to make valid

judgments were all false or unreliable.” Also, he proposes that “informa-

tion has to be processed and discussed for it to acquire full meaning and

significance.”

“When information is free, available and truthful, we are

better able to make appropriate judgments, including whether existing

governments fulfill their mandate to govern for the benefit of the people,”

Lee writes.

In his article “The Computer as a Democratizer,” Hauben similarly

explores the need for accurate information about how government is

functioning. He writes, “Without information being available to them, the

people may elect candidates as bad as or worse than the incumbents.

Therefore, there is a need to prevent government from censoring the

information available to people.”

Hauben adds that, “The public needs accurate information as to how

their representatives are fulfilling their role. Once these representatives

have abused their power, the principles established by [Thomas Paine] and

[James] Mill require that the public have the ability to replace the

abusers.”

Channels of accurate communication are critical in order to share the

information needed to determine the nature of one’s government.

Page 87

Conclusion

The candlelight revolution is still in process in South Korea. It is

demonstrating in practice that we are in a period when the old forms of

government are outmoded. The paper by Licklider and Taylor proposes

that the computer is a splendid facilitator for cooperative modeling. It is

such a process of cooperative modeling that offers the potential for

creating not only new technical and institutional forms, but also new

political forms. Such new political forms are more likely to provide for the

democratic processes that are needed for the 21

century. Hence it is the

efforts of citizens and netizens who are involved in collaborative modeling

to create the more participatory forms and structures as is happening

during the candlelight processes being explored in South Korea that

provide for the development of a more equitable and democratic society.

References/Citations

1. Hauben, M., R. Hauben, (1997), Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and

the Internet, Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society Press, p. 3. Also available online in

an earlier draft version,

http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/. Retrieved on Jan. 18, 2017.

2. IBID., p. ix.

3. IBID., p. 233.

4. Poster, M., (2006). Information Please. Durham: Duke University Press, p. 68.

5. IBID.

6. IBID., p. 70.

7. IBID., p. 71.

8. IBID.

9. IBID., p. 77.

10. IBID., p. 78.

11. IBID.

12. IBID., p. 83.

13. Kamat, V. (2011, December 16), “We are looking at the Fifth Estate,” Reader’s

Opinion, Times of India, p. 2.

http://timesof india.indiatimes .com/edit-page/ampnbspWe-

are-looking-at-the-fifth-estate/articleshow/11133662.cms, Retrieved on Jan. 10, 2017. The

quote is taken from Hauben, R. “The Rise of Netizen Democracy: A Case Study of

Netizens’ Impact on Democracy in South Korea,”

http://www.columbia.edu

/~rh120/other/misc/korean-democracy.txt, Retrieved on Jan. 10, 2017.

14. In South Korea there are many interesting examples of new organizational forms or

Page 88

events created by netizens. For example, Nosamo combined the model of an online fan

club and off-line gathering of supporters who worked to get Roh Moo-hyun elected as

President in South Korea in 2002. Also, OhmyNews, an online newspaper, helped to make

the election of Roh Moo-hyun possible. Science mailing lists and discussion networks

contributed to by netizens helped to expose the fraudulent scientific work of a leading

South Korean scientist. And in 2008 there were 106 days of candlelight demonstrations

contributed to by people online and off to protest the South Korean government’s

adoption of a weakened set of regulations about the import of poorly inspected U.S. beef

into South Korea. The debate on June 10-11, 2008 over the form the demonstration

should take involved both online and off-line discussion and demonstrated the generative

nature of serious communication. See for example, Hauben, R. “On Grassroots

Journalism and Participatory Democracy.”

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

/netizens_draft.pdf, Retrieved on Jan. 10, 2017.

15. Some examples include the anti-cnn website that was set up to counter the inaccurate

press reports in the western media about the riot in Tibet. The murder case of a Chinese

waitress who killed a Communist Party official in self defense. The case of the Chongqing

Nail House and the online discussion about the issues involved. See for example, Hauben,

R. (2010, February 14). “China in the Era of the Netizen.”

https://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog

/2010/02/14/china_in_the_era_of_the_netizen/.

16. IBID., Netizens.

17. “The Computer as a Communication Device,” (1968, April) Science and Technology.

http://memex.org/licklider.pdf, pp. 21-41. Retrieved Jan. 21, 2017.

18. The Licklider and Taylor paper also points out that the sharing of models is essential

to facilitate communication. If two people have different models and do not find a way

to share them, there will be no communication between them.

19. IBID., Netizens, p. 299

20. Deutsch, K., (1966), Nerves of Government, New York, The Free Press, p. xxvii.

21. See for example, Hauben, R., (2012, Winter), “Libya, the UN and Netizen Journa-

lism,” The Amateur Computerist, Vol. 21, No. 1.

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACn21-

1.pdf, Retrieved Jan. 10, 2017 and Hauben, J., (2007), “On the 15

Anniversary of

Netizens: Netizens Expose Distortions and Fabrication.”

http://www.columbia.edu/

~hauben/Book_Anniversary/presentation_2.doc.

22. Lee, Z. (2011), “Truthfulness and the Information Revolution,” JPL 31, p. 105.

23. IBID., p. 106.

24. IBID., p. 108.

25. IBID., Netizens, p. 316.

26. IBID., Netizens, p. 317.

27. M. Hauben explains: “Thomas Paine, in The Rights of Man, describes a fundamental

principle of democracy. Paine writes, ‘that the right of altering the government was a

national right, and not a right of the government’.” (Netizens, Chapter 18, p. 316)

28. Hauben, R., (2016, December 21), “Ban Ki-moon’s Idea of Leadership or the

Page 89

Candlelight Model for More Democracy?,” http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2016/12/21

/leadership-or-candlelight-democracy/. Retrieved on Jan. 21, 2017.

Bibliography

Deutsch, K. (1966). Nerves of Government. New York: The Free Press. New York.

Hauben, M. & Hauben, R. (1997). Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the

Internet. Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society Press. Online edition:

http://www.col umbia.edu/~rh120, Retrieved on Jan. 11, 2017.

Hauben, R. (2005). “The Rise of Netizen Democracy: A Case Study of Netizens’ Impact

on Democracy in South Korea.” Unpublished paper. Retrieved from

http://www.columbia .edu/~hauben/ronda2014/Rise_of_Netizen_Democracy .pdf.

Komat, V. (2011, December 16, p. 2). Reader’s Opinion: “We’re Looking at the Fifth

Estate.” Times of India. Retrieved from:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com

/edit-page/ampnbspWe-are-looking-at-the-fifth-estate/articleshow/111336 62.cms.

Lee, Z. E. (2011). “Truthfulness and the Information Revolution,” Journal of Philippine

Librarianship, 31. pp. 101-109.

http://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/jpl/article

/viewFile /2779/2597. Retrieved on Jan. 11, 2017.

Licklider, JCR, & Taylor, R. “The Computer as a Communication Device.” (1968, April).

Science and Technology.

http:// memex.org/licklider.pdf. pp. 21-41. Retrieved Jan.

21, 2017.

Poster, M. (2006). Information Please. Durham: Duke University Press.

* This article is a revised version of a presentation made on May 1, 2012 at a small

celebration in honor of the 15

Anniversary of the publication of the print edition of the

book Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet.

The opinions expressed in articles are those of their authors and not neces-

sarily the opinions of the Amateur Computerist newsletter. We welcome

submissions from a spectrum of viewpoints.

Page 90

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:

mailto:[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.

ELECTRONIC EDITION

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

All issues of the Amateur Computerist are on-line.

All issues can be accessed from the Index at:

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

Page 91